Nice try, but a single clause of the last sentence of the quote in my #12 reveals no other conclusion: "...it will scarcely be contended that the government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance or its pecuniary aid."
Madison's late-life view is the government has suffered needlessly by exempting religion; by "the wall of separation." Who's been duped? It isn't me, my friend. How much clearer can Madison be? This is not word salad.
Boolean logic is merely mathematical translation of a philosophy.
There is absolutely6 no up-side advantage to smoking. There are much safer ways to deal with anxiety rather than be the cause/recipient of living in a smoke cloud.
Both name alternatives are killer. I'll try to think of it that way. Thanks.
I conclude;
"So, you harvest the leaves of a tobacco plant, dry them, shred them, and roll a large pinch of the shreds into a small piece of paper. Seal the paper tube, put one end in your mouth and light the other end on fire. Then suck the smoke into your mouth and throat, let it linger, then blow it out of your mouth. Repeat until the tube is less than an inch long. Beware, it can burn your fingers. Light up another one."
Hitler is dead, so would be stupid to vote for the guy.
"Radical" is as loose a moniker as "woke."
I don't particular care that Spanburger may be "less" radical than Hock-up, she';s still an idiot who acts contrary to her campaign. She's building a track record that will guarantee she loses next election.
Oh, I have no doubt that AI is/will be useful. I just wish we had better word coinage that "artificial." If the bloody thing can actually think on its own, why do we belittle it with an offensive name? Doesn't give one any confidence that it's a worthwhile effort to engage it. "'Artificial' intelligence" is an oxymoron.
You will note that I advised NOT "reading about Madison," but rather READING MADISON. Read from the horse's mouth, not some idiot historian's opinion.
When and where did Madison offer the quote you gave, because here's one that occurred in 1832, when Madison was finished with government, retired on his plantation. This is part of a letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, with whom Madison conversed by letter several times:
"The simple question to be decided is whether a support of the best and purist religion, the Christian religion itself, not so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the government rather than being left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it. The existing character, distinguished, as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn, sufficiently to prove that it does not need the support of government, and it will scarcely be contended that the government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance or its pecuniary aid."
If, in fact, your quote is accurate, obviously in later years he had a falling out with "a wall of separation."
You might read more of Madison; in particular his letters to various individuals, particularly with regard to what government and religion did in tandem [not an "implicit wall" as you describe, even after 1776. Interesting reading.
I ignore what I ignore. No apologies.
Have I ever said I opposed private ownership of guns? No. But I also support personal human behavior control. Personal, not by government. But that is a commitment to which each person, individually, must be committed.
What is certain is that neither you nor I know.
I've been telling you just the opposite all along; such things can be known. We are endowed with more senses than the five we currently recognize. There are other animals who have our five senses, but have more. you really think we do not have access to them, as well? Nonsense. We just need to learn how to use them.
You ignore that up until the seventh decade of the 18th century, the colonial governments did... what?
Contributed public funds of government to religions, just as the public did, because they know that religion was partner with government, using their shared, though different means to help improve the peoples' lives. At that point t in time, those monies were diverted to support the revolution effort against Britain. That's the fly in the ointment of the separation claim. Oops.
Honestly, no idea what you’re talking about here.
Typical response from Dbl.
an endorsement and promotion of religion.
The point of the 1A is neither "endorsement," nor "promotion." pls look up the meaning of "establish;" the word that is ion the manedment. Words mean things. It is neither of those other concepts, so let's not put words in the Founders' mouths, huh? Also might read the Federalist Papers, in which Hamilton, Madison, and Jay described the choice of Constitutional rendering. Once upon a time, this stuff was part of school curricula. That is, until the whacks took over education with feel-good & DEI education. .
You miss this point: "we do not have the right to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary"
There are always consequences to our claim of rights, where rights may not in fact be available. Therefore, we do not have the "right" [which is available to all], but a misguided privilege "...to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary." Privileges are of limited access. One of the limitations is that by whatever claim we make about someone else is subject to truth. One may say that another is "low I.Q.," but they had better be prepared to prove it in court should that other person sue for slander or libel. They have that right, my friend.
You miss my point;
We have entirely different views of what being American means.
Because I am not the only one with such sense [maybe just the only pone who has told you, but I'm not everyone else], others have also thought this way, and first prove it to themselves, and then others who are willing to do it themselves. As I cited to Seargantlynch just above, "Do, or do not. There is no try," and "Be ye therefore perfect..." Don't be intimidated by such advice, just go do it. It's a never-ending process on which there is progress, slow and steady. There are things you do perfectly, now. Just go grow by doing more.
There's a better strategy than coping. It's called "Do, or do not. There is no try." This is from the prophet, Yoda. It's a bit like the Son of God, who said "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." Some think that is impossible, which is just coping. It is not impossible, it's just difficult. Tough shyte. We either do difficult things, or we cope. I choose tough.
Perfection seems impossible only because we think it's a troday>tomorrow thing. No. Today, do something better than yesterday. Then tomorrow, better still. In industry, it's called "continuous improvement." It's a very practical approach, because it's also thinking that perfection is not a destination, but a process. A never-ending process. It always has been a process, worked at daily. There are things which are done perfectly, right now, but not all things. Next week, the growth is measurable in some things, while others remain the same. But, gradual progress is made and measurable.
When movies develop a realistic, 3D holographic image, will images like a burning structure be excluded as an allowed image due to the risk of an audience member thinking the theater itself is on fire, causing a panic and potential injury to others by shouting "Fire!"
More to the point, though unsaid by the 1A, freedom of speech has an unwritten, but obvious secondary clause; We have the right to be offended by another's commentary, but we do not have the right to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary, with the exception of stopping someone from saying anything that might be eminently putting another in physical danger, like stopping someone yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. The yeller can, in fact, be legally penalized for endangerment of others.
Um, yeah… turns out people don’t like...
One can say the very same, and not be speaking of Trump.
Being president is not a legal entitlement.
I never said it was. What is legal is to have the ambition to be the president, meet the few constitutiional requirements, and then plan and execute the plan [how to become the president], just as I've already said. What I did not say, but could [and will] is that the media is not legally equipped to convict anyone of anything, they just think they have that power and privilege. Swelled heads.
Killer Mike
Yes, I have thoughts. You mentioned nothing of either the Bloods or Crypts' results of sales, and I don't know anything about the story, so I have no opinion whether it was a game changer for them, or not. At least the buried the hatchet for at least during the event, so, there's that. Sounds like they took on some ambition to do more for themselves than they ever did before, so, there's that, and it supports my point about ambition. Question remains, however, whether they'd have expressed that ambition before Killer Mike made his offer... which also underscores my point of lack of ambition.
Correct. Sight is not my only empirical sense.
As for your assumption, apparently, yes, again, because I know how to read all the senses I possess, and apparently you admit you don't know how to do your own reading of self. It is an acquired taste, after all.
The shootings in San Diego today by a pair of barely adult males were okay, according to the Democrat mantra, because they were not privileged white men, and they took themselves out, anyway. Had they not off'd themselves, it would also have been okay to release them prior to arraignment without bail. Welcome to the 2026 Democrat Party.
Without benefit of amendment [amending the 14A, Clause 1], the Democrats will propose that all space aliens landing in America are US citizens deserving of benefits.
a more honest version of your arguments
No. I expect some who are poor have that impression, but that is merely self-limitation taken to an extreme, because some who are wealthy do devote time and resources for the benefit of the poor with no expectation of either exploitation of them, or future re-compensation from therm.
I am one of them. First, I give 20% of my income to local needs, plus contribute time to volunteer at an assisted living facility for which my daughter is a Director, and is also a Paramedic. I also do line-drawing illustrations to contribute to schools for special-needs children for coloring, read stories and discuss them with those same kids. A group of us assist elderly members of the community with their yard work, weeding, mowing, trimming, etc.
"oh lets pretend we know".
No, that is merely thinking we are limited to 5 or less senses [some of us have >5 senses] that are the basis of scientific, empirical proof, or do you think science is also just what we think we know, and that there is no real body of knowledge of anything.
