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 10-26-2010, 02:51 PM
 
40,158 posts, read 24,381,957 times
Reputation: 12644

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
The 1st Amendment protects the rights of the church. The 1st amendment being used for any other reason is unconstitutional.

"Respecting the establishment", no concept required.
How are you going to mix water with oil, when you are prohibited from mixing oil with water?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2010, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,771 posts, read 4,446,597 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
How are you going to mix water with oil, when you are prohibited from mixing oil with water?
Spiritually...they mingle.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2010, 03:06 PM
 
40,158 posts, read 24,381,957 times
Reputation: 12644
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
Spiritually...they mingle.
And pragmatically....they are separate.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2010, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,771 posts, read 4,446,597 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
And pragmatically....they are separate.
Unconstitutionally so...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2010, 03:16 PM
 
86 posts, read 77,598 times
Reputation: 42
Ok, I'm a liberal and saw on TV what she said.

She was right, unfortunately. It's not in the Constitution. I don't really consider "shall not establish a national religion" separation of church and state. I WISH this was the case. Didn't the Supreme Court uphold the "one nation under god" phrase? The list of church and state is very long. I don't see any separation. Let's not forget Obama's "don't support gay-marriage" because the bible told me so...(insert puke icon here).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2010, 05:23 PM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,488,100 times
Reputation: 1326
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonInhabitant View Post
Ok, I'm a liberal and saw on TV what she said.

She was right, unfortunately. It's not in the Constitution. I don't really consider "shall not establish a national religion" separation of church and state. I WISH this was the case. Didn't the Supreme Court uphold the "one nation under god" phrase? The list of church and state is very long. I don't see any separation. Let's not forget Obama's "don't support gay-marriage" because the bible told me so...(insert puke icon here).
Technically, "shall not establish a national religion" is not in the constitution either, because that's not the phrase it uses. This is the basic argument we are getting in support of O'Donnell's question. Though, it does mean no national religion, but not exclusively. The actual words are "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"An establishment of religion" does not only refer to a national religion. it refers to any establishment of religion. A church is an establishment of religion.

If it literally meant "shall not establish a national religion" and only that, then it wouldn't say "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - "Thereof" would refer to an established national religion specifically, and that would make no sense to prohibit something and then prohibit prohibiting that something in the same sentence.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2010, 12:30 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,771 posts, read 4,446,597 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
Technically, "shall not establish a national religion" is not in the constitution either, because that's not the phrase it uses. This is the basic argument we are getting in support of O'Donnell's question. Though, it does mean no national religion, but not exclusively. The actual words are "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"An establishment of religion" does not only refer to a national religion. it refers to any establishment of religion. A church is an establishment of religion.

If it literally meant "shall not establish a national religion" and only that, then it wouldn't say "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - "Thereof" would refer to an established national religion specifically, and that would make no sense to prohibit something and then prohibit prohibiting that something in the same sentence.
I had found this awhile back. The Real First Amendment?

I haven't read all of it as it is quite long and I haven't quite the time. However, from what I have read, the author makes valid points on the 'interpretation' of the 1st Amendment.

The author does so here. (however, it is a book, this is just the intro)
Introduction
Quote:
the law would have as an option:
1) Obey the law, and suffer the consequences.
2) Obey the law, suffer the consequences, but seek to amend the law.
3) Ignore the law; pretend it doesn't exist.
4) "Interpret" the law to mean what it "should" mean.

If the Supreme Court can apply choices 3 and 4 with absolute provisions of a high-profile Amendment, just imagine what they can do with the vaguer, less prominent clauses.
The 1st Amendment is suppose to protect us, not prohibit us.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2010, 07:29 AM
 
40,158 posts, read 24,381,957 times
Reputation: 12644
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
I had found this awhile back. The Real First Amendment?

I haven't read all of it as it is quite long and I haven't quite the time. However, from what I have read, the author makes valid points on the 'interpretation' of the 1st Amendment.

The author does so here. (however, it is a book, this is just the intro)
Introduction
The 1st Amendment is suppose to protect us, not prohibit us.
WRONG. The government of the United States is a representative government. It represents the people. It is an extension of the people. The First Amendment, and really the entire Bill of Rights, is designed to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. When it prohibits the government, it is prohibiting a tyranny of the majority. It is prohibiting the people. It is prohibiting people who want freedom of religion for themselves from restricting the freedom of religion for others. It is prohibiting people who don't want to listen to the free speech of others from silencing those others. The First Amendment is an intriguing part of the system of balances the Founding Fathers devised. The three branches of government is not the only system of balance. They tried to create balances in every aspect of the government. They tried to balance state and federal powers. They tried to balance judicial powers. They tried to balance individual rights against the societal interests.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2010, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,771 posts, read 4,446,597 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
WRONG. The government of the United States is a representative government. It represents the people. It is an extension of the people. The First Amendment, and really the entire Bill of Rights, is designed to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. When it prohibits the government, it is prohibiting a tyranny of the majority. It is prohibiting the people. It is prohibiting people who want freedom of religion for themselves from restricting the freedom of religion for others. It is prohibiting people who don't want to listen to the free speech of others from silencing those others. The First Amendment is an intriguing part of the system of balances the Founding Fathers devised. The three branches of government is not the only system of balance. They tried to create balances in every aspect of the government. They tried to balance state and federal powers. They tried to balance judicial powers. They tried to balance individual rights against the societal interests.
Did they succeed in their efforts as time has moved forward to those whose ideals do not match those or even reconcile with, the Founding Fathers?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2010, 02:12 PM
 
40,158 posts, read 24,381,957 times
Reputation: 12644
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
Did they succeed in their efforts as time has moved forward to those whose ideals do not match those or even reconcile with, the Founding Fathers?
Why would that matter?
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
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