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.
...as far as the Constriction goes how does only allowing certain religions and not others not contradict the no establishment of religion as they would be establishing which religions are acceptable to that town council or the town itself.
This is really the crux of the whole thread subject. Sure, a city council from any pissant town could decide "we are going ti have a specifically Christian prayer to open our meetings. Most people in this community are Christian and this is what they want."
Should this be challenged, a court is very likely going to interpret it as an attempt to establish a religion as part of a municipality, county or state, and rule it unconstitutional, since precluding the establishment of a religion is the one thing the Constitution is pretty clear on regarding religion and the separation of it from the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
...if the majority are Christians (or any other religion), then they have the right to have a speaker representing their religion.
...just as long as they give equal time to any other religions requesting the same thing, or see above for what the end result could be.
Those are 2 different things. The Constitution does not state there is a separation of church and state,but merely limits the federal government from enforcing a religion on the states. The states have the right to allow religion or not.
Nonsense. We simply believe the Constitution.
Wrong, there's a reason Thomas Jefferson himself called it a separation of church and state:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State
The short of it beyond that (despite Thomas Jefferson being way ahead of his time, as he often was) is:
1) The 1st amendment Establishment clause
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2) The 14th amendment due process clause
Quote:
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
3) Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Quote:
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1][2] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law. Prior to this decision the First Amendment words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"[3] imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[4] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[5]
So in short you are wrong... the Establishment clause and all other rights are enforced on the States via the 14th amendment. This was fully established in 1947, so yeah, you are way behind the times.
This is usually enforced with local governments either:
1) Having no official religious grants, such as an official prayer time etc
2) Equal availability of such grants to any and all religions
No what is sad is destruction of religious freedom by this irrational all or nothing type mentality. It's obvious that the only reason this David Suhor wanted to give a prayer was to cause a conflict with Christians.
I believe in freedom of religion for all, but if your religion is a hostile conflict against mine then we're going to have a problem in the public arena. Satan is an enemy of God. He is an enemy of mankind and the Bible. So to ask the vast majority of Christian residents to sit their quietly which this guy speaks evil against them is wrong.
If I lived in a community that was overwhelmingly Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish etc... I wouldn't have a problem with a city council meeting invoking their prayer. Because their religion is not a direct conflict against mine and I can respect what the community desires. Sad that atheists can't show an ounce of respect for people of faith.
I'm glad that Thomas Jefferson held a different view and actually thought we should protect the rights of minorities:
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
I'll also cite James Madison on a similar issue (he talks about Chaplains in congress, which he was vehemently againstto what you word, but he's very clearly on the opposite side, that the minority needs protected not ignored:
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
It's actually amazing how good of a retort that bolded part is pretty much to exactly what you said.
No what is sad is destruction of religious freedom by this irrational all or nothing type mentality. It's obvious that the only reason this David Suhor wanted to give a prayer was to cause a conflict with Christians.
Why does it need to be a conflict? Do you not care if having a Christian speaking causes conflict for others? That would make you quite the hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I believe in freedom of religion for all,
Ok, so far so good....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
but if your religion is a hostile conflict against mine then we're going to have a problem in the public arena. Satan is an enemy of God. He is an enemy of mankind and the Bible. So to ask the vast majority of Christian residents to sit their quietly which this guy speaks evil against them is wrong.
And then you show just how big of a hypocrite you are. You believe in freedom of religion... but only certain ones.... That is not freedom of religion Jeff. Surely you have the capacity to understand that, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If I lived in a community that was overwhelmingly Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish etc... I wouldn't have a problem with a city council meeting invoking their prayer. Because their religion is not a direct conflict against mine and I can respect what the community desires.
So again, you have no problem with freedom of religion, as long as you get to decide which religions get that freedom..... Yea, okay, Jeffery. We see you for what you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Sad that atheists can't show an ounce of respect for people of faith.
You mean like you show respect to atheists? You are a hypocrite, Jeff. Plain and simple.
Last edited by southernbored; 07-21-2016 at 07:03 AM..
Reason: spelling
Says the guy who is insisting he understands US Constitutional law better than generations of Supreme Court Justices.
Viz and I have our handy-dandy pocket Skousen Constitutions. It is complete with religious commentary, and quotes having nothing to do with the actual Constitution.
It is the favorite of the sovereign citizen movement guys.
That is why Viz has little respect for SCOTUS. Those rules do not apply to him on the local level.
Skousen was a Mormon (ironic) and believed in a Christian Theocracy starting at the local level.
You obviously don't know a thing about spiritual warfare. Invocating demonic activity most certainly can cause harm.
Umm, you do understand that Satanist are more or less Atheist right? They don't believe in ANY God/s. They worships themselves so to speak.
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.
