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.
Everyone seems to agree that Congress cannot inhibit an individual's right to practice their religion (free exercise clause). But there has been a debate on whether the Establishment Clause prevents government from either inhibiting or advancing a particular religion.
What say you?
My belief: Congress can neither inhibit nor advance a particular religion and that establishes a wall of separation between church and state.
I say freedom of religion has been twisted and twisted to the point where people think it means freedom from religion.My church married Me and My state divorced Me against My will and I got excommunicated as a result.I never even got or applied to the state for thier stupid marrige licence. but heck I got costudy of the kids . stupid gov aint my God but think they are.
There is no debate. The government cannot establish or advance any particular religion in this country. Originally that only applied to Congress and the federal level. The USSC case, Gitlow v. New York applied it to state and local government as well.
I say freedom of religion has been twisted and twisted to the point where people think it means freedom from religion.My church married Me and My state divorced Me against My will and I got excommunicated as a result.I never even got or applied to the state for thier stupid marrige licence. but heck I got costudy of the kids . stupid gov aint my God but think they are.
I know what you mean.....who does the stupid government think they are? I bypassed them and went straight to my Lord to stamp my divorce papers. The ink was golden, too.
I also feel there should be no advancing of any particular religion.
I know what you mean.....who does the stupid government think they are? I bypassed them and went straight to my Lord to stamp my divorce papers. The ink was golden, too.
I also feel there should be no advancing of any particular religion.
I agree with you there.Separation of church and state means exactly that and the gov overstepped that in my case. your first statement was meant to be funny i guess? it wasn't
There has to be some governmental regulation of marriage to establish minimal standards because not everyone in this country belongs to an organized religion. Suppose two atheists want to get married. Who will they go to in order to do that?
Everyone seems to agree that Congress cannot inhibit an individual's right to practice their religion (free exercise clause). But there has been a debate on whether the Establishment Clause prevents government from either inhibiting or advancing a particular religion.
What say you?
My belief: Congress can neither inhibit nor advance a particular religion and that establishes a wall of separation between church and state.
Government laws must:
must have a secular legislative purpose;
must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
So no, the government cannot advance a particular religion, it may inhibit religion so long as the law is neutral, and generally applicable, and the inhibition of religious practice is merely incidental (and an exemption would undermine the secular purpose of the law)
Atheism is also a form of religion... if you do then you advance one religion, if you don't then you advance the other religion... it says to separate church and state... it didn't say that state can't talk about religion...
they need an atheist church I guess if they wanna copy what us religious people do. but I guess a judge will do for them. you could get married,pay your traffic tickets,bail out your brother in law and sue your neighbor all in one trip. sounds romantic and blessed dont it
they need an atheist church I guess if they wanna copy what us religious people do. but I guess a judge will do for them. you could get married,pay your traffic tickets,bail out your brother in law and sue your neighbor all in one trip. sounds romantic and blessed dont it
I think for a lot of people it is not the method of marriage that is important, but the meaning of it. Therefore, whoever marries a couple may not be important to them.
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.
