The English Bill of Rights (1692)

by The_Amber_Spyglass Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:27 pm

Before I go into the text of this document, it is necessary to travel back in time to about 150 years before the Act to give an idea for why it was considered necessary in the first place. The 17th century was arguably the most tumultuous period in our history and here is a brief summary...

Following the untimely death of Henry VIII's son Edward VI (in 1553), England turned to Henry VIII's daughter from his first marriage, Mary I. A strong Catholic in an increasingly Protestant country, Mary I earned herself the name "Bloody Mary" for her execution of Protestants, including the man responsible for the most sweeping of Protestant changes to the Church of England, Thomas Cranmer. Mary was unpopular and died (possibly of cancer) with the country broke and on the brink of anarchy.

Queen Elizabeth I was a confirmed Protestant and her long reign brought order, stability and made England rich again. She died in 1602 with no heir, thereby ending the Tudor dynasty. England was stronger than it had been in a long time and Elizabeth's advisors turned to Scotland, to James VI of the Stuart line. He became James I of England and following the failed Gunpowder Plot, constantly found himself at loggerheads with Parliament that he dissolved for several years at one point. This would set the scene for the early Stuart monarchs and it would be this growing adherence to absolute rule and Divine Right of Kings that would end up with England defying a King and going through a Civil War that would end with Charles I being decapitated. The establishment of Oliver Cromwell as Lord High Protector of the Commonwealth brought what was the only Republican period in English history.

With the death of Cromwell and the failure of his Commonwealth, Parliament asked back from exile Charles I son, Charles II. Charles was known as the "Merry Monarch" for the hedonism he had brought after the austerity of the Puritan revolution. Derided by the whigs and celebrated by the Tories, it seems Charles II was loved and loathed in equal measure. On his deathbed it is said that he converted to Catholicism though in life he opposed the Catholic faith of his brother James (who would become the second king of that name).

James II was Catholic and all was not well when the Test Act was passed. A law that would make all civil and military officials to publicly swear fealty to the Church of England and deny Catholic doctrines such as transubstantiation. James refused and brought himself into conflict with the church of which he was supposed to be the titular head.

Even before his reign began, there was feeling in Parliament that a Catholic should not be allowed to be monarch (and therefore head of the Church of England) and attempts were made to exclude James from succession. Anti-Catholic feeling was at an all time high. James was seen as a tyrant, a man who built a private army against a perceived Parliamentarian conspiracy against him and the House of Stuart. James II was falling into the same trap of the power grab that had led to the downfall of his father. He tried to get the Test Act repealed and attempted to force Anglican clergy to read what they considered to be Catholic doctrine in their churches. His Act of Indulgence, an attempt to challenge legal restrictions on Catholics, was seen as an attempt to subvert the Anglican church by its supreme head.

The nobility had had enough. A small group sought to meet with William of Orange (husband of James daughter Mary) and asked him to bring an army and stage an invasion. William did invade and James found himself losing support even in his military that defected in great numbers to William and Mary. James put up little resistance and fled to France where he lived in retirement. His refusal to fight, the act of throwing the Great Seal of the Realm into the Thames and his attempt to flee the country was seen by Parliament as abdication. The Glorious Revolution as it was so-called passed with little resistance and minimal bloodshed. Mary was declared Queen and would rule jointly with her husband William. But Parliament had been formulating a plan to ensure that no king would ever again assume divine right or supremacy over Parliament. And that document was An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown or more commonly known as The English Bill of Rights (1689).

I'll let that sink in before going further.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Sat Aug 28, 2010 3:07 pm

An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne.

Whereas the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Comons assembled at Westminster lawfully fully and freely representing all the Estates of the People of this Realme did upon the thirteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty eight present unto their Majesties then called and known by the Names and Stile of William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange being present in their proper Persons a certaine Declaration in Writeing made by the said Lords and Comons in the Words following viz

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.

By Assumeing and Exerciseing a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without Consent of Parlyament.

By Committing and Prosecuting diverse Worthy Prelates for humbly Petitioning to be excused from Concurring to the said Assumed Power.

By issueing and causeing to be executed a Commission under the Great Seale for Erecting a Court called The Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes.

By Levying Money for and to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner then the same was granted by Parlyament.

By raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary to Law.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

By Violating the Freedome of Election of Members to serve in Parlyament.

By Prosecutions in the Court of Kings Bench for Matters and Causes cognizable onely in Parlyament and by diverse other Arbitrary and Illegall Courses.

And whereas of late yeares Partiall Corrupt and Unqualifyed Persons have beene returned and served on Juryes in Tryalls and particularly diverse Jurors in Tryalls for High Treason which were not Freeholders,

And excessive Baile hath beene required of Persons committed in Criminall Cases to elude the Benefitt of the Lawes made for the Liberty of the Subjects.

And excessive Fines have beene imposed.

And illegall and cruell Punishments inflicted.

And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.

And whereas the said late King James the Second haveing Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby Vacant His [ X1 Hignesse] the Prince of Orange (whome it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious Instrument of Delivering this Kingdome from Popery and Arbitrary Power) did (by the Advice of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and diverse principall Persons of the Commons) cause Letters to be written to the Lords Spirituall and Temporall being Protestants and other Letters to the severall Countyes Cityes Universities Burroughs and Cinque Ports for the Choosing of such Persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parlyament to meete and sitt at Westminster upon the two and twentyeth day of January in this Yeare one thousand six hundred eighty and eight in order to such an Establishment as that their Religion Lawes and Liberties might not againe be in danger of being Subverted, Upon which Letters Elections haveing beene accordingly made.

And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare

That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.

That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.

That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious.

That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall.

That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.

That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free.

That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted.

That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned . . . F1

That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.

And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently.

And they doe Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into Consequence or Example. To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly encouraged by the Declaration of this Highnesse the Prince of Orange as being the onely meanes for obtaining a full Redresse and Remedy therein. Haveing therefore an intire Confidence That his said Highnesse the Prince of Orange will perfect the Deliverance soe farr advanced by him and will still preserve them from the Violation of their Rights which they have here asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Rights and Liberties. The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at Westminster doe Resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdomes and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princesse dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the sole and full Exercise of the Regall Power be onely in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the Names of the said Prince and Princesse dureing their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the Heires of the Body of the said Princesse And for default of such Issue to the Princesse Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body And for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince and ( X2 ) Princesse to accept the same accordingly.

And that the Oathes hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whome the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy be abrogated.

I A B doe sincerely promise and sweare That I will be faithfull and beare true Allegiance to their Majestyes King William and Queene Mary Soe helpe me God.

I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

Upon which their said Majestyes did accept the Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging according to the Resolution and Desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said Declaration. And thereupon their Majestyes were pleased That the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the two Houses of Parlyament should continue to sitt and with their Majesties Royall Concurrence make effectuall Provision for the Setlement of the Religion Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe of being subverted, To which the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons did agree and proceede to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the Premisses the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled for the ratifying confirming and establishing the said Declaration and the Articles Clauses Matters and Things therein contained by the Force of a Law made in due Forme by Authority of Parlyament doe pray that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come. And the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous Providence and mercifull Goodness to this Nation to provide and preserve their said Majestyes Royall Persons most happily to Raigne over us upon the Throne of their Auncestors for which they render unto him from the bottome of their Hearts their humblest Thanks and Praises doe truely firmely assuredly and in the Sincerity of their Hearts thinke and doe hereby recognize acknowledge and declare That King James the Second haveing abdicated the Government and their Majestyes haveing accepted the Crowne and Royall Dignity [ X3 as] aforesaid Their said Majestyes did become were are and of right ought to be by the Lawes of this Realme our Soveraigne Liege Lord and Lady King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose Princely Persons the Royall State Crowne and Dignity of the said Realmes with all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully rightfully and intirely invested and incorporated united and annexed And for preventing all Questions and Divisions in this Realme by reason of any pretended Titles to the Crowne and for preserveing a Certainty in the Succession thereof in and upon which the Unity Peace Tranquillity and Safety of this Nation doth under God wholly consist and depend The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe beseech their Majestyes That it may be enacted established and declared That the Crowne and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms and Dominions with all and singular the Premisses thereunto belonging and appertaining shall bee and continue to their said Majestyes and the Survivour of them dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the entire perfect and full Exercise of the Regall Power and Government be onely in and executed by his Majestie in the Names of both their Majestyes dureing their joynt Lives And after their deceases the said Crowne and Premisses shall be and remaine to the Heires of the Body of her Majestie and for default of such Issue to her Royall Highnesse the Princess Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body and for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of his said Majestie And thereunto the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe in the Name of all the People aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submitt themselves their Heires and Posterities for ever and doe faithfully promise That they will stand to maintaine and defend their said Majesties and alsoe the Limitation and Succession of the Crowne herein specified and contained to the utmost of their Powers with their Lives and Estates against all Persons whatsoever that shall attempt any thing to the contrary. And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same [ X4 And in all and every such Case or Cases the People of these Realmes shall be and are hereby absolved of their Allegiance] And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons soe reconciled holding Communion or Professing or Marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead [ X5 And that every King and Queene of this Realme who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeede in the Imperiall Crowne of this Kingdome shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament next after his or her comeing to the Crowne sitting in his or her Throne in the House of Peeres in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled or at his or her Coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the Coronation Oath to him or her at the time of his or her takeing the said Oath (which shall first happen) make subscribe and audibly repeate the Declaration mentioned in the Statute made in the thirtyeth yeare of the Raigne of King Charles the Second Entituled An Act for the more effectuall Preserveing the Kings Person and Government by disableing Papists from sitting in either House of Parlyament But if it shall happen that such King or Queene upon his or her Succession to the Crowne of this Realme shall be under the Age of twelve yeares then every such King or Queene shall make subscribe and audibly repeate the said Declaration at his or her Coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such King or Queene shall have attained the said Age of twelve yeares.] All which Their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present Parliament and shall stand remaine and be the Law of this Realme for ever And the same are by their said Majesties by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled and by the authoritie of the same declared enacted and established accordingly

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1

Words repealed by (E.W.) Juries Act 1825 (c. 50), s. 62 and (N.I.) Statute Law Revision Act 1950 (c. 6), Sch. 1
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1

Short title given by Short Titles Act 1896 (c. 14), Sch. 1
C2

Act declared to be a Statute by Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 (c. 1)
C3

S. 1 amended by Accession Declaration Act 1910 (c. 29), s. 1
Editorial Information
X1

Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: Highnesse O. [O. refers to a collection in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge]
X2

Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: and O. [O. refers to a collection in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge]
X3

interlined on the Roll.
X4

annexed to the Original Act in a separate Schedule.
X5

annexed to the Original Act in a separate Schedule.
Click to open Main body

Click to open II. Non obstantes made void.
II.
Non obstantes made void.
Noe Dispensation by Non obstante of or to any Statute or any part thereof shall be allowed but the same shall be held void and of noe effect Except a Dispensation be allowed of in such Statute . . . F2
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F2

Words repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 1
Click to open III. . . .
III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F3

S. 3 repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1867 (c. 59)

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1518621

I'll analyse and explain the text at a later time. Hopefully this long weekend.

by **TexasBlue** Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:45 pm

Parlyament ROFL

Funny how words evolve over time.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:22 am

You've obviously never read any Chaucer in its original text. His work must be read out loud in order that the reader can understand it.

There was no standardised spelling until Queen Victoria so documents written until then could have the word "King" spelt "Kyng" or "Kynge", sometimes in the same document.

by TheNextPrez2012 Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:03 am

According to George Carlin:
We have 10 rights
The British have 13 rights
The Germans have 29 rights
The Belgians have 25 rights
The Swedish have 6 rights
And others have no rights

Why would God give different people in different countries different numbers of different rights?

by The_Amber_Spyglass Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:36 am

dblboggie asked why many of the clauses specifically referred to Protestants. This is the answer I posted at SP...

There are several reasons for the issue that only Protestants were permitted. Many of the reasons cited in the first post highlights the public feeling toward Catholics. Plus the Civil War was still fresh in the mind and of course, the reason it happened in the first place. Because of the disaster that was James II reign, including his attempts to subvert the church he was supposed to be the titular head of, the nobility could no longer tolerate Catholic influence (hence Catholics would be disenfranchised for the next few hundred years - including that no Catholic could become monarch or marry into the royal family). Clearly the powers that be feared a second Catholic-led civil war so William of Orange was invited to invade in the first place. The document is really split between limiting the rights of Catholics and taking power away from the crown. It was those reforms that resulted in the constitutional monarchy we have today.

As for the vagueness of the wording of rights to Protestants (usually aigned off with 'within the confines of law') it is usually argued those that composed it imagined it would be an evolving document and would limit itself through too-specific wording. Arguably more so in 1692 than any time since the death of King John, Magna Carta was at the forefront of the minds of educated people. The Elizabethans championed it, as did the Parliamentarians during the Civil War. It was certainly an influence on The Bill of Rights.

Addendum: In a way you can understand the concern of Catholic influence over the church. Though we cannot and should not justify making Catholics second class citizens, it is an absurd notion that a Catholic ought to be permitted to be titular head of the Church of England. Otherwise, we ought to let a Jew or a Muslim become Pope.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:48 am

Furthermore, I have no intention of posting on SP again, so I am going to copy-paste the response here.

dblboggie wrote:Thanks Matt. You know, it occurs to me that our 1st Amendment was also inspired by the events that lead to the drafting of the English bill of rights and likely by the turmoil that had embroiled the Continent as a result of the Reformation.

I don't doubt it for one minute. Divine Right of Kings was anachronistic in 1692 - hence why Charles I lost his head for confusing the century in which he lived for a much earlier one where Kings merely needed to demand an army from the Great Council in order to get one.

As with the Magna Carta, I hope to keep this thread alive with regular additions.

by **TexasBlue** Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:29 pm

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Furthermore, I have no intention of posting on SP again, so I am going to copy-paste the response here.

Why's that? You aren't the first. I think Miley has all but quit there, too.

by i_luv_miley Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:33 pm

TexasBlue wrote:
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Furthermore, I have no intention of posting on SP again, so I am going to copy-paste the response here.

Why's that? You aren't the first. I think Miley has all but quit there, too.

I posted in there a few weeks ago - in the popstar section. Laughing

But I don't really have a desire to post there anymore. It's a good place for pictures and videos of course, but there is just too much drama in some threads. And that's just in the celebrity sections... I mean, when I have to defend Miley frickin' Cyrus against rabid Britney frickin' Spears fans, that sucks the fun out of things - especially seeing as I like both. Plus, as I said in another thread in here, I feel that the powers-that-be at SP actually encourage friction between members. That bugs me. It may be okay in some sections, but not in the picture sections.

by **TexasBlue** Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:44 pm

Right on.

by dblboggie Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:13 pm

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Furthermore, I have no intention of posting on SP again, so I am going to copy-paste the response here.

dblboggie wrote:Thanks Matt. You know, it occurs to me that our 1st Amendment was also inspired by the events that lead to the drafting of the English bill of rights and likely by the turmoil that had embroiled the Continent as a result of the Reformation.
I don't doubt it for one minute. Divine Right of Kings was anachronistic in 1692 - hence why Charles I lost his head for confusing the century in which he lived for a much earlier one where Kings merely needed to demand an army from the Great Council in order to get one.

As with the Magna Carta, I hope to keep this thread alive with regular additions.

As for our First Amendment, I was also referring to the "freedom of religion" portion of that amendment. I believe our Founders knew of the chaos the Reformation created on the Continent, realized that religion as an instrument of government was antithetical to real freedom and good governance, and accordingly wrote that Amendment as they did.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While commonly misread as meaning that our government could have no truck with religion, this amendment only means that the government could not enact any law that would establish a state religion ("make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."), nor prevent anyone from observing whatever religion took their fancy.

by **TexasBlue** Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:17 pm

Key words are

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

by dblboggie Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:58 pm

TexasBlue wrote:Key words are
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Actually, the REAL key word is the one I've underlined above. Some interpret this word "establishment" to mean any religious organization as an "establishment," but if one looks up the word, "establishment" means "an establishing or being established" (Webster's New World College Dictionary). Thus the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from "establishing" a religion... i.e., creating a state religion.

by **TexasBlue** Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:04 am

dblboggie wrote:Actually, the REAL key word is the one I've underlined above. Some interpret this word "establishment" to mean any religious organization as an "establishment," but if one looks up the word, "establishment" means "an establishing or being established" (Webster's New World College Dictionary). Thus the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from "establishing" a religion... i.e., creating a state religion.

I know this. But people like to take Jefferson's words out of context.... the ol' separation of church and state routine.

People like to whine about a theocracy coming if we let too many religious nuts into power. Hardly. This amendment prohibits what they fear..... a theocracy.... establishment of a state religion.

by dblboggie Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:30 am

TexasBlue wrote:
dblboggie wrote:Actually, the REAL key word is the one I've underlined above. Some interpret this word "establishment" to mean any religious organization as an "establishment," but if one looks up the word, "establishment" means "an establishing or being established" (Webster's New World College Dictionary). Thus the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from "establishing" a religion... i.e., creating a state religion.

I know this. But people like to take Jefferson's words out of context.... the ol' separation of church and state routine.

People like to whine about a theocracy coming if we let too many religious nuts into power. Hardly. This amendment prohibits what they fear..... a theocracy.... establishment of a state religion.

Just so... in fact, that phrase was actually derived from a private letter written by Jefferson in 1802 to the Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut which referenced the First Amendment which read as follows:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Of course, even this letter does not change the original meaning of the First Amendment, but the perversion of this letter’s phrase “wall of separation” has been extremely distorted and used to justify the all out government assault on religion in our time. And this is coming from one who is not religious in the slightest.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:36 am

TexasBlue wrote:
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Furthermore, I have no intention of posting on SP again, so I am going to copy-paste the response here.

Why's that? You aren't the first. I think Miley has all but quit there, too.

Firstly I don't enjoy it any more, it is just the same old shit with the same old people. Further, it is a complete waste of my time. There are so many things I want to do now I finally have the motivation to do it. I have a novel to submit to agents, I have really missed writing fiction. Arguing with certain people who are either a) ignorant or b) downright stupid and are proud of it is not doing me any good. It is not really productive and it is always going over the same old shit with the same old people. It isn't just there though, I've also stopped posting on IMDB. This place and our own forum (The 4 Horsemen) will be the only place I post from now on.

I've actually locked myself out of SP. Changed my password yesterday to something I've already forgotten.

by **TexasBlue** Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:53 am

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I've actually locked myself out of SP. Changed my password yesterday to something I've already forgotten.

by Sponsored content

The English Bill of Rights (1692)

The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)

Re: The English Bill of Rights (1692)