U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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)
 
Old 10-21-2010, 08:45 PM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,484,103 times
Reputation: 1326

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
the only thing the first amendment does is prevent the government from forcing everyone to worship the same way, and the same deity. it is a separation of government from religion, but not the other way around. perhaps it should be it separates government regulation from religion.
Boy is that contrived. How can government be separate from religion but religion not be separate from government?

The separating government regulation from religion is covered in the "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" part, but that's only half of it. Government also can't respect any establishment of religion.

So it's like saying government can't respect or disrespect religion, meaning it just better stay away from it altogether (i.e. separation of church and state).

(note: "State" is different than "government officials" so it doesn't keep government officials separate from religion, just that their governmental actions must be secular.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2010, 09:00 PM
 
335 posts, read 354,868 times
Reputation: 406
O'Donnell is correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 09:04 PM
 
32,437 posts, read 26,292,401 times
Reputation: 19034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
Furthermore we can see that everything in the universe that was once closer together is moving further apart, suggesting a steady expansion from one point in time. These things which are facts are what support the Big Bang Theory.
the steady expansion of the universe also points to dark energy as the force behind the expansion, though it cannot yet be proven that it exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
Boy is that contrived. How can government be separate from religion but religion not be separate from government?

The separating government regulation from religion is covered in the "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" part, but that's only half of it. Government also can't respect any establishment of religion.

So it's like saying government can't respect or disrespect religion, meaning it just better stay away from it altogether (i.e. separation of church and state).

(note: "State" is different than "government officials" so it doesn't keep government officials separate from religion, just that their governmental actions must be secular.)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

this part just says that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. that merely means that, coupled with the 14th amendment, that the various local, state, and federal governments cannot establish a state religion. the second part basically says that the same governments cannot prevent the free exercise of religion. it is not a separation of church and state. it does not mean that the members of congress cannot open the session with a prayer if they so choose for instance, or if a congressman wants to put the ten commandments on the wall of his office. or if a muslim congressman wants to pray five times per day, or keep the tenants of islam on their office wall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 09:12 PM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,484,103 times
Reputation: 1326
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

this part just says that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. that merely means that, coupled with the 14th amendment, that the various local, state, and federal governments cannot establish a state religion.
How many people are going to blatantly ignore the difference between respecting an establishment of religion and establishing a religion?

Quote:
the second part basically says that the same governments cannot prevent the free exercise of religion. it is not a separation of church and state. it does not mean that the members of congress cannot open the session with a prayer if they so choose for instance, or if a congressman wants to put the ten commandments on the wall of his office. or if a muslim congressman wants to pray five times per day, or keep the tenants of islam on their office wall.
You didn't read my whole post apparently. Let me repeat a sentence: (note: "State" is different than "government officials" so it doesn't keep government officials separate from religion, just that their governmental actions must be secular.)

It's separation of church and state, not separation of church and government officials' personal lives. You seem to be having a lot of trouble with this concept...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 10:04 PM
 
16,437 posts, read 19,127,002 times
Reputation: 9518
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
How many people are going to blatantly ignore the difference between respecting an establishment of religion and establishing a religion?
It's important to understand the 18th century use of the word "respecting" which meant "in regard to", "associated with", "concerning".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 10:14 PM
 
26,466 posts, read 17,273,563 times
Reputation: 10392
Quote:
Originally Posted by siobhandem View Post
O'Donnell is correct.
Well now that settles it. Your argument is indisputable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 10:52 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
13,975 posts, read 10,915,300 times
Reputation: 12741
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
How many people are going to blatantly ignore the difference between respecting an establishment of religion and establishing a religion?
Thank you... I was wondering if anyone was going to bring that up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
It's important to understand the 18th century use of the word "respecting" which meant "in regard to", "associated with", "concerning".
You're completely missing the point... The key distinction here that he was getting at was the word "establishment", not "respecting".

If you look up the word in the dictionary, you will get some definitions like the following:

1. the act or an instance of establishing.

2. any large organization, institution, or system

The founders mean #2, not #1. They meant to say that Congress won't make laws regarding any religious institution, i.e. establishment. They did not mean to specify that Congress isn't supposed to create their own religion... ...although that outcome is also prohibited by the First Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 02:00 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,345,879 times
Reputation: 1833
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Another victim of home schooling or worse...
What scares me, is that this "girl" says she's from "Waianae" = an area i frequented often when I lived in Hawaii.

I dont remember anyone being as ignorant as her, amongst my friends from the leeward side of Oahu; and hope that she is reflective of a small minority of those who would skip school that lead to Hawaii's bad truancy problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 03:43 AM
 
16,437 posts, read 19,127,002 times
Reputation: 9518
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
I can tell you for damn sure that the First Amendment provides for effective separation of Church and State.
I'm going to hazard a guess that you believe the second amendment applies only to state national guards. Correct?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 11:40 AM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
13,975 posts, read 10,915,300 times
Reputation: 12741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
I'm going to hazard a guess that you believe the second amendment applies only to state national guards. Correct?
Wrong. I'm going to hazard a guess - actually, more than a guess - that your off-topic straw man arguments are not going to work.
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.


Reply
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
Message:

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 33, 34, 35 - Top