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.
Most religious beliefs are based on the threat of some punishment or promise of a reward from some invisible sky daddy. Are you actually trying to say that Christians don't believe that all non-Christians will be punished for all eternity in the afterlife? I find it very odd that you don't think that the threat of torture is not force or coercion.
There is a big move to interpret Freedom of Religion, to mean Freedom from Religion.
What was the original intent?
Unfortunately, that is an incorrect interpretation. Believe me, as an atheist, freedom from religion would be a blessed thing and the best thing since Jesus Christ, but that was never the intent of the Constitution.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a contract between you and the government, not between you and me.
Because I am not the government, when you come into my home or work-place, you have no free speech, no freedom to assemble, no freedom to petition, no freedom of religion or from religion and I can search and seize anything whenever it so suits me.
Why?
Again, the Constitution is a contract between you and the government, and between me and the government, but it is not a contract between you and I.
"Ceremonial deism" is a court recognized exception to the Establishment clause.
They also lived in the 1700's in what was more or less a homogenous society as compared to now. Long story short, thanks to demographics and the lack of legal mechanisms for minorities to challenge the government, no one seriously challenged the government on civil rights until the 20th century.
See above.
"Ceremonial deism". You will have to give me YOUR definition of this term and how it pertains to all the religious paintings, sculpture etc. in gov't buildings.
Yes they lived in the 1700's. So what? We are still ruled by the documents they wrote back then. And we see how they interpreted those documents by the actions they took.
Until Amendments are enacted into law, we are bound by the documents as they now exist.
If you believe something should changed, work on it. Until then we will follow that what exists today.
"Ceremonial deism". You will have to give me YOUR definition of this term and how it pertains to all the religious paintings, sculpture etc. in gov't buildings.
I don't make up definitions for things when the SCOTUS has already done so.
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
Justice Brennan:
"I would suggest that such practices as the designation of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form a "ceremonial deism," protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."
Quote:
Yes they lived in the 1700's. So what? We are still ruled by the documents they wrote back then. And we see how they interpreted those documents by the actions they took.
No one suggested otherwise. But there is a difference between slavish adherence to the letter of the law - a practice not really favored in our common law system because it inevitably produces absurdity and injustice - and applying the intent to specific fact patterns that did not exist and could not have been imagined in the 1700's.
Quote:
Until Amendments are enacted into law, we are bound by the documents as they now exist.
No one said otherwise. Judicial interpretations of those documents are law also in our system. A lot of people don't seem to realize or appreciate that.
Quote:
If you believe something should changed, work on it. Until then we will follow that what exists today.
And we are, in a 21st century way. So what is your problem?
How do you explain the many religious symbols in our gov't buildings that were built in the time of our founders?
I believe the people who wrote or supported the first documents of our country knew what those documents meant and had no problem with displaying religious symbols.
The also held Sunday Services IN the Capitol building for about 7 years with Adams, Jefferson and many other politicians attending.
I don't make up definitions for things when the SCOTUS has already done so.
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
Justice Brennan:
"I would suggest that such practices as the designation of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form a "ceremonial deism," protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."
No one suggested otherwise. But there is a difference between slavish adherence to the letter of the law - a practice not really favored in our common law system because it inevitably produces absurdity and injustice - and applying the intent to specific fact patterns that did not exist and could not have been imagined in the 1700's.
No one said otherwise. Judicial interpretations of those documents are law also in our system. A lot of people don't seem to realize or appreciate that.
And we are, in a 21st century way. So what is your problem?
And nobody has ever disagreed with any Supreme Court decision.
I disagree with the courts decision. In God We Trust still means we trust in God.
"No one suggested otherwise". Are we on the same subject? That is exactly what some are suggesting.
"slavish adherence to the letter of the law - a practice not really favored in our common law system". My point. Some believe we adhere to the writings of the Constitution and understand what our forefathers meant by their actions.
Some people want to change what the original content was by applying "new" interpretations to fit their own philosophies.
What does what century we are in have to do with anything? Again, if YOU think the accepted interpretations by the vast majority of Americans are not applicable to today, amend the Constitution, if you can.
I repeat if our forefathers could have religious symbols and activities on gov't property there is no reasonable reason why we cannot do so today.
Freedom to choose or not choose a religion; the government should not establish a religion but that does not mean the country is atheist. We were founded on religious principles. Liberals are trying to deny it and indoctrinate our children. Read the link.
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.
