U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 04-12-2013, 09:10 PM
5 posts, read 2,971 times
Reputation: 10


"The government shall not, by law or other official means, represent or appear to sanction any particular religious belief."

While I support the "spirt" of the amendment, it is rather poor in wording. For example what is meant by "appear to sanction any particular religious belief" mean?

Does this mean the government cannot allow any religious belief? Must they arrest people for professing religious belief?Must they burn down churches, mosques, temples? I feel "sanction" is very poor.

Also, the "by law or offical means" clause defines how the government shall not repersent or appear to sanction religious belief.So, perhaps, it could be argued that coins could still have in God we Trust. Are they officalizing religion or trying to show the historic beliefs Americans have. Also, some Christians like to say they're a spirituality, and take offence being described a religion. What if a few such Christians got they're way on the high court?

Unless theocracies, how could the government repersent a belief?

Last edited by Hannah Smith; 04-12-2013 at 10:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 04-12-2013, 10:10 PM
5 posts, read 2,971 times
Reputation: 10
I might write. " The first amendment to this constitution is herby repealed.

No State, The United States, or any place subject to the jurisdictions of either, shall make or enforce law that: establishes an offical regligion; gives funding, loans money, gives tax exemptions or intitives to religious or irreligious institutions, or otherwise giving favor to religious institutions; promotes, discourages religion or irreligion or embeds religious or irreligious symbols on or in: legal tender or public buildings oaths to any of these rebulics ; permits any governmental body to acknowledgement the existence or lack of existence of any deity; prohibits the right of people, not exculding polticans to freely practice their religion, refrain from any religious practice, or even criticize,or mock it; prescribes religous doctrine or practices to religous or irreligious organizations.

This amendment shall not be construed as immunity from criminal prosecution,civil suits, or the establishment of an atheist state."

Last edited by Hannah Smith; 04-12-2013 at 10:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-13-2013, 12:01 PM
Location: South Minneapolis
4,207 posts, read 4,506,868 times
Reputation: 5831
What do you mean by "sanction" in your proposal? Is allowing religiois practices the equivalent of sanctioning them? It seems to me that this would be just another term open to interpretation by the courts. It also seems to me that we have a lot bigger problems to deal with than messing around with this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-16-2013, 06:03 PM
Location: Central Maine
2,868 posts, read 2,588,550 times
Reputation: 3952
Let me remind you of the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), that went before the U.S. Supreme Court. This decision addressed whether Christian ministers should be classified with several other types of labor as an exception to the Contract Labor Law. of 1885. As a result of this ruling the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling that disallowed an exemption for an English minister who was under contract to serve a church in the United States. Congress later amended the law to officially allow clergy to enter the US under contract without being heldto the restrictions imposed under contract labor law. What does thta have to do with this? During this case Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court stating in part "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation". Granted this is NOT in the US constitution but shows that America was recognized as a Christian Nation by its highest court as late as the late 19th century. A LOT has changed since then, hasn't it? Don't take my word for this, look it up online and go to the case yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top