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.
We have turned that around and are now pressing congress to do exactly what it was prohibited from doing. There has never been any such injunction against the state governments, but now we are asking congress to overturn state laws that are in conflict with federal laws respecting religion.
How did we get that mandate from documents that state congress shall pass no law and states laws shall not be infringed?
The 14th Amendment applies the 1st Amendment to the states.
I presume you are referring to section 1 of the amendment?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In this I see that the state are prohibited from making any law that removes rights or privileges. I do not see where it orders the states to prohibit any freedoms previously enjoyed. I do not see where state are ordered to pass laws restricting religious activities from publicly supported areas. This language speaks exactly the opposite to me.
Sorry, his post appeared at the same time as yours and rolled me to the next page without seeing yours. Feel free to respond to my response to him if you like.
I presume you are referring to section 1 of the amendment?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In this I see that the state are prohibited from making any law that removes rights or privileges. I do not see where it orders the states to prohibit any freedoms previously enjoyed. I do not see where state are ordered to pass laws restricting religious activities from publicly supported areas. This language speaks exactly the opposite to me.
Well, the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War and its whole purpose was to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states. It has a very interesting history if you're interested in that sort of thing. I don't trust myself on the details enough to go into a long explanation of it, but in general, it was passed at least partly in response to the Dred Scott decision, where the Supreme Court used some very twisted logic to hold that Scott, a slave, continued to be a slave even when his owner took him to a non-slave owning state. Passage of the 14th Amendment was a turning point in U.S. history because it made the federal government so much stronger in relation to the states.
Going back to your original post, We seem to have twisted this into an imperative to ban religion in public and to force it behind closed doors out of sight.
I think that this characterization is a bit dramatic. People are free to attend whatever church they want, when they want, indoors or out. They are free to pray when they eat in restaurants or at their desks at work. They can march in the name of Jesus and hold prayer vigils outside abortion clinics, or anywhere else they want. They can approach people in parking lots and hand out pamphlets, or go door-to-door preaching the word of God, or stand on a street corner and preach to all who listen. They can hold bake sales and car washes and raffles and not pay any taxes on the proceeds.
What they CAN'T do is use public funds to pay for any of it, or force anyone, who is not of their religion, to participate.
Exactly. If it said Christian God, Morman God, Buddist God etc. that would be a problem but the majority of people since the beginning of man have looked to the heavens and believed in some surpreme being or God.
There is no Buddist god. And hindus have more than one god. This is a clear endorsement of one particular theological view (monotheism) over others (polytheism, atheism). It has been ruled constitutional on dubious historical precent reasons not b/c it doesn't violate the 1st amendment. In any event, "In god we trust" doesn't offend me, it amuses me. To me it is like "in unicorn we trust". Laughable.
That is what this thread is all about. Forget Santa, I will take crosses, menorahs, prayer rugs, golden calves, stone circles, anything.
There is a difference, you know. Santa Claus is a secular figure; your examples are religious.
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 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.
Sorry, his post appeared at the same time as yours and rolled me to the next page without seeing yours. Feel free to respond to my response to him if you like. 
