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.
The DOI declared the intent to establish a new nation separate from England - it is not the defining document of the US.
You can babble on and on about what was in the hearts and minds of the founders, but the ONLY thing that matters are the actual words those founders used in the document that provides the foundation for all US laws. The word "god" is not mentioned even once.
The truth is, if there had been an intent on the part of the founders that laws of the new nation of the United States of America be based on a god, it would have been written in the Constitution. It wasn't.
Your entire post = fail
Illogical reasoning on your part.
So you're saying that a group of men who separated from England and who acknowledged God, the Creator, and who claimed that all rights come from God weren't thinking of God-given rights when the wrote the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, despite the fact that around 238 of the 250 founding fathers were Christians? Yeah, that makes sense...(sarcasm).
What the God-haters wanted to do was to eliminate the role of God in the public arena, in our nation's founding, and in our government. They grabbed hold of the establishment clause, pertaining to a prohibition of a state church, and have convinced millions, erroneously, that it means that religious beliefs and speaking of God can play no role in the government, and that simply isn't so.
You do realize that the establishment clause says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress. This relates to a state church, for if it were anything more than a state church, you wouldn't have had these same founders AFTER the writing of the Constitution speaking of Jesus on the floors of Congress, nor would you have had supreme court justices mentioning Jesus while handing down a sentence. However, the latter is not congress, so it shouldn't, by any interpretation be prohibited. Even then, why would congress speak of Jesus? It's because the establishment clause also mentions "or prohibit the free exercise, thereof", and this also includes public officials. You see, speaking of God is not making a law. In the private arena, not only are students speaking at a graduation not congress, they are also not making law. Thus, to deny such is breaking the first amendment which prohibits prohibitions on the free exercise of religion. Thus, the school was out of line. Yet, you have the ACLU and atheist organizations trying to force Christians to deny them the practice of their religion, in public and in private. You've seen them claiming Christians can't pray at public events, such as at football games. You've seen them claiming that Christians can't put up crosses, Bible verses, or other displays of faith, despite the fact that it limits the free exercise of religion, something completely prohibited by the establishment clause. You see them claiming that towns can't put up nativity scenes, even though it is public officials agreeing to do so, respecting their own free exercise. If public or private individuals couldn't do so in a public setting, then the founding fathers never would have mentioned Christ or God while working on the floors of congress, while handing down a decision.
So you're saying that a group of men who separated from England and who acknowledged God, the Creator, and who claimed that all rights come from God weren't thinking of God-given rights when the wrote the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, despite the fact that around 238 of the 250 founding fathers were Christians? Yeah, that makes sense...(sarcasm).
What the God-haters wanted to do was to eliminate the role of God in the public arena, in our nation's founding, and in our government. They grabbed hold of the establishment clause, pertaining to a prohibition of a state church, and have convinced millions, erroneously, that it means that religious beliefs and speaking of God can play no role in the government, and that simply isn't so.
You do realize that the establishment clause says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress. This relates to a state church, for if it were anything more than a state church, you wouldn't have had these same founders AFTER the writing of the Constitution speaking of Jesus on the floors of Congress, nor would you have had supreme court justices mentioning Jesus while handing down a sentence. However, the latter is not congress, so it shouldn't, by any interpretation be prohibited. Even then, why would congress speak of Jesus? It's because the establishment clause also mentions "or prohibit the free exercise, thereof", and this also includes public officials. You see, speaking of God is not making a law. In the private arena, not only are students speaking at a graduation not congress, they are also not making law. Thus, to deny such is breaking the first amendment which prohibits prohibitions on the free exercise of religion. Thus, the school was out of line. Yet, you have the ACLU and atheist organizations trying to force Christians to deny them the practice of their religion, in public and in private. You've seen them claiming Christians can't pray at public events, such as at football games. You've seen them claiming that Christians can't put up crosses, Bible verses, or other displays of faith, despite the fact that it limits the free exercise of religion, something completely prohibited by the establishment clause. You see them claiming that towns can't put up nativity scenes, even though it is public officials agreeing to do so, respecting their own free exercise. If public or private individuals couldn't do so in a public setting, then the founding fathers never would have mentioned Christ or God while working on the floors of congress, while handing down a decision.
Your point of view holds no water.
Talk about lack of logic.
If the government is prohibited from promoting, establishing, or endorsing a religion, then citizens are prohibited from using government institutions to promote, establish or endorse a religion. Citizens are free to practice their religion. They just can't use the government to try to get others to practice their religion.
If the government is prohibited from promoting, establishing, or endorsing a religion, then citizens are prohibited from using government institutions to promote, establish or endorse a religion.
Depends on what you consider using government institutions.
Would this not be an example of someone using the government to promote religion?
National Day Of Prayer 2013 Proclamation By President Obama
Since he doesn't single out any particular religion it wouldn't be establishing or endorsing any one particular religion but is it not promoting religion?
Since he doesn't single out any particular religion it wouldn't be establishing or endorsing any one particular religion but is it not promoting religion?
As you say, he isn't endorsing any one particular religion. And prayer can be considered the equivalent of meditation, which doesn't necessarily have a religious association.
I think the broadness of that proclamation is even larger than "In God We Trust", and the courts have weighed in and consider "In God We Trust" to be sufficiently broad that it is not an endorsement of a religion.
As you say, he isn't endorsing any one particular religion. And prayer can be considered the equivalent of meditation, which doesn't necessarily have a religious association.
I think the broadness of that proclamation is even larger than "In God We Trust", and the courts have weighed in and consider "In God We Trust" to be sufficiently broad that it is not an endorsement of a religion.
Since he doesn't single out any particular religion it wouldn't be establishing or endorsing any one particular religion but is it not promoting religion?
So you're saying that a group of men who separated from England and who acknowledged God, the Creator, and who claimed that all rights come from God weren't thinking of God-given rights when the wrote the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, despite the fact that around 238 of the 250 founding fathers were Christians? Yeah, that makes sense...(sarcasm).
What the God-haters wanted to do was to eliminate the role of God in the public arena, in our nation's founding, and in our government. They grabbed hold of the establishment clause, pertaining to a prohibition of a state church, and have convinced millions, erroneously, that it means that religious beliefs and speaking of God can play no role in the government, and that simply isn't so.
You do realize that the establishment clause says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress. This relates to a state church, for if it were anything more than a state church, you wouldn't have had these same founders AFTER the writing of the Constitution speaking of Jesus on the floors of Congress, nor would you have had supreme court justices mentioning Jesus while handing down a sentence. However, the latter is not congress, so it shouldn't, by any interpretation be prohibited. Even then, why would congress speak of Jesus? It's because the establishment clause also mentions "or prohibit the free exercise, thereof", and this also includes public officials. You see, speaking of God is not making a law. In the private arena, not only are students speaking at a graduation not congress, they are also not making law. Thus, to deny such is breaking the first amendment which prohibits prohibitions on the free exercise of religion. Thus, the school was out of line. Yet, you have the ACLU and atheist organizations trying to force Christians to deny them the practice of their religion, in public and in private. You've seen them claiming Christians can't pray at public events, such as at football games. You've seen them claiming that Christians can't put up crosses, Bible verses, or other displays of faith, despite the fact that it limits the free exercise of religion, something completely prohibited by the establishment clause. You see them claiming that towns can't put up nativity scenes, even though it is public officials agreeing to do so, respecting their own free exercise. If public or private individuals couldn't do so in a public setting, then the founding fathers never would have mentioned Christ or God while working on the floors of congress, while handing down a decision.
Your point of view holds no water.
Your proselytizing is tedious and is reflective of an absolutely closed mind. Nevertheless...
Yet, you have the ACLU and atheist organizations trying to force Christians to deny them the practice of their religion, in public and in private. When has the ACLU/atheist organizations denied Christians the practice of their religion in private/on private property.
You've seen them claiming Christians can't pray at public events, such as at football games. Christians can and do pray at public events all the time.
You've seen them claiming that Christians can't put up crosses, Bible verses, or other displays of faith, despite the fact that it limits the free exercise of religion, something completely prohibited by the establishment clause. You see them claiming that towns can't put up nativity scenes, even though it is public officials agreeing to do so, respecting their own free exercise. Christians can put up crosses, bible verses, and other displays of faith in/on non-taxpayer funded venues whenever they want - and they do.
If public or private individuals couldn't do so in a public setting, then the founding fathers never would have mentioned Christ or God while working on the floors of congress, while handing down a decision. Doesn't matter what they said/did, it matters what they wrote down for posterity, and what they wrote was the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Since he doesn't single out any particular religion it wouldn't be establishing or endorsing any one particular religion but is it not promoting religion?
I don't think the POTUS should be proclaiming or endorsing a National Day Prayer.
Yet, you have the ACLU and atheist organizations trying to force Christians
to deny them the practice of their religion, in public and in private. You've
seen them claiming Christians can't pray at public events, such as at football
games. You've seen them claiming that Christians can't put up crosses, Bible
verses, or other displays of faith, despite the fact that it limits the free
exercise of religion, something completely prohibited by the establishment
clause. You see them claiming that towns can't put up nativity scenes, even
though it is public officials agreeing to do so, respecting their own free
exercise. If public or private individuals couldn't do so in a public setting,
then the founding fathers never would have mentioned Christ or God while working
on the floors of congress, while handing down a decision.
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.
