And Here Come the Hobby Lobby-Inspired Cases

[uebermann]

[Dylan]

Galt is splitting hairs. Not sure why.

You're point is right ueber. Courts sometimes look to the history of the document in interpreting it, including the perspectives of the framers.

[John Galt]

jefferson wasn't a framer

i'm not splitting hairs. ALMOST means it could be ANYTHING BUT THE THING IT IS ALMOST

like there is no other reason to say almost unless you mean it is NOT it

"i almost won a billion dollars" != "i won a billion dollars"

"i almost f**k your mom" != "i f**k a whale"

if they said "jefferson is an authority" instead of "jefferson may almost be an authority" then yeah what you said is true. but why have these extra words if they are meaningless, as you are saying?

[Dylan]

Ueber's point is that they referred to his beliefs as a source for interpretation. This is accurate, your autistic seizures aside.

[John Galt]

[Dylan]

*yawn* not impressed with the amateur - hour hair splitting. Have fun with it though I'm sure this qualifies as a huge victory in your life.

[John Galt]

[uebermann]

[John Galt]

it was a political, not personal, letter written to the leaders of the baptists to downplay fears about himself being an atheist (as he was accused) and that the federal government has a distinction between Church (as in religious institutions) and the Federal Government.

he is not an authoritative figure on the first amendment. the etymology of the word comes from "author". why not look at the authors for authority instead of random other people that were alive at the time that didn't write it? it's a fallacious appeal to authority to quote him because he can't be an authority on the subject because he had nothing to do with it. "Jane Austen - authority on Article II of the Consitution"

but even so, as i already indicated, even so, the letter was about the distinction between federal authority and the church. but no where does Jefferson think that the wall should be high and impregnable, separating to keep in different realms. if you read the first amendment it doesn't say that. the first amendment guarantees that government will not meddle in religious affairs of citizen or be beholden to a church. but it says nothing about churches meddling in government. and jefferson himself sent missionaries to go convert the heathens

what the courts did is used a fallacy in order to bolster their sophistry that the first amendment had anything to do with separation of church and state. again this all goes back to the original statement i was telling indy: it's a metaphor and it's not the law, because that is undeniably true. and the courts do not make the wall higher and higher, nor do i think the courts should do that: the first amendment was not about protecting government from press and religion.

[Indy]