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.
So your whole premise is that the SCOTUS case law that I referred to on school prayer, etc. (did you read it?) was unconstitutional, right? Your argument is that they didn't have the right under the constitution to make those decisions? That clarifies lots for me about where you're coming from.
The SCOTUS decision was based on the establishment clause. The government cannot establish a state religion. The court reasoned that since prayer is being conducted in a publiclly financed institution it amounted to establishment of religion.
The SCOTUS decision was based on the establishment clause. The government cannot establish a state religion. The court reasoned that since prayer is being conducted in a publiclly financed institution it amounted to establishment of religion.
I'm done with this. Yes, they used the establishment clause, because under the concept of creating a state religion, people would be forced to participate. The entire REASON for the establishment clause, and the logical consequence of it, is that it protects people from having others beliefs imposed on them. As I said, you're going in circles.
I'm done with this. Yes, they used the establishment clause, because under the concept of creating a state religion, people would be forced to participate. The entire REASON for the establishment clause, and the logical consequence of it, is that it protects people from having others beliefs imposed on them. As I said, you're going in circles.
So sad, it is you who can't admit that freedom from religion doesn't exist. You simply can't make up your own rational for how the law works.
The entire reason for the establishment clause was to prevent the government from compelling citizens to practice a particular religion. It was not established to protect people from religious expression. As I said take a quarter from your pocket and look at "In God we trust".
So sad, it is you who can't admit that freedom from religion doesn't exist. You simply can't make up your own rational for how the law works.
The entire reason for the establishment clause was to prevent the government from compelling citizens to practice a particular religion. It was not established to protect people from religious expression. As I said take a quarter from your pocket and look at "In God we trust".
I never said it was there to protect people from random religious expression--that would in essence be creating a state "religion" of non-belief (kind of like communist countries) and it would create the same problems. I think you have me confused with another poster. It does protect me from being forced to observe or participate in others religious practices--it's the same thing. You're being absolutely ridiculous. Goodbye.
I never said it was there to protect people from random religious expression--that would in essence be creating a state "religion" of non-belief (kind of like communist countries) and it would create the same problems. I think you have me confused with another poster. It does protect me from being forced to observe or participate in others religious practices--it's the same thing. You're being absolutely ridiculous. Goodbye.
Now it is you who is talking in circles. By your logic the enforcement of the establishment clause would be the enforcement of a state "religion" of non-belief. Now that is ridiculous. Bye bye!
By the way take a quarter from your pocket, look at it see "In God we trust"? Try walking away from us currency.
Anyone using the "In God we Trust" on currency argument
lies as flat as a quarter; the motivation for putting it on currency in the first place, was/is as wacky as the evangelicals are today.
I think there is freedom from religion, but, by no means, escaping it crawling out of the political woodwork every chance they get It's about time they loose their tax exempt status
I agree, NO organization should be exempt from taxes...including POLITICAL religions ...ie acorn, naacp, aflcio, dnc, moveon, etc
Political organizations can't get non-profit 501(c) status. That's why churches, labor unions, community organizations like the boys scouts, YMCA, etc. can't endorse candidates or give money to candidates with money from membership or dues, although they can educate their membership about issues important to them without taking a stand on a candidate. The way they get around it is to raise completely separate (can't use membership or union dues, or regular church collections) to fund a side organization--eg. political action groups for labor organizations, "right to life" groups for churches, etc. Those organizations are not tax exempt.
My church runs a food bank, does lots of community service projects, runs an after school daycare program and a preschool--all of those are legitimate tax exempt projects.
"Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition."
All you references go on in the same way.
There simply isn't a right to "freedom from religion". I am fascinated by this you must reveal you education.
And in that case, specific, the court said that a criminal act is a criminal act and Congress did not over reach its powers because the criminal act had nothing to do with the first amendment.
All of those documents are going that same way. What cannot be done is to impose your beliefs on another, this is why that there is the establishment clause. The moment that the state picks up a religion and holds it above others is the moment that all other religions or non-religious people face persecution.
Nobody gives a damn if you wear religious articles of clothing or pray walking down the street. It isn't relevant. In fact, if you want to get technical your argument has nothing to do with the establishment clause. Which means that you would be dealing with the free speech. The religious articles would fall under expression.
There simply isn't a right to "freedom from religion". I am fascinated by this you must reveal you education.
Quote:
If you are free to follow your own religious beliefs, then it is LOGICAL that you are protected from having others beliefs imposed on you. That logic has been backed up repeatedly by SCOTUS. It's a basic, simple, concept. If you're looking for the specific term "freedom from religion" I don't know if you'll find it or not. It's one of those things where you actually have to understand what you're reading, and follow logic. That's how SCOTUS makes their arguments (that's how attorneys argue cases as well--logic and law), and why you're getting comments from other posters here about your ability to understand basic concepts.
Here's the thing. We have the right to practice religion, or not. Seeing a cross, Star of David or even a Cresent isn't imposing religion on anyone. If just seeing a religious symbol offends someone then that person is far too easily offended. To force anyone to remove symbols of their faith is supression of religion. To say that the image of baby Jesus in a manger scene forces anyone into Christianity is patently rediculous, don't you think? Any reasonable person, who is truly interested in fairness, should.
I believe that the actual goal is to wipe out all belief in God and to use the constitution to do so, rendering it useless at some point. Quote- "Congress shall not pass a law... etc" -end, a little thing like the constitution didn't stop them from passing forced health care, now did it? So under the guise of religious freedoms we'll soon have no religious freedom, or state endorsed religions. Especially if the EU has its way with the US.
Who better to dismantle the constitution than a constitutional lawyer in the most powerful position on earth...
Last edited by steven_h; 10-03-2010 at 12:54 PM..
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.
crawling out of the political woodwork
every chance they get
It's about time they loose their tax exempt status
