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.
Actually, it's the Bill of Rights and thus, only an amendment to the Constitution. It also does not mention "freedom of religion." It does, however, say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or "impeding the free exercise of religion,..."
You get that? No establishment of religion! NOT "freedom of religion," which is often derived from the latter part of the amendment.
In a subsequent decision by the US Supreme Court (Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994)), it was concluded that this also meant that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
That means that you can exercise your religion, I can exercise mine, and others can exercise NONE! Whatever floats our personal boats, government CAN NOT endorse any religion or the absence thereof.
Public schools are, by definition, extensions of government. Therefore, they also CAN NOT endorse any particular religion.
If you want a Christian symbol on government property, you must also allow a variety of other religions to be represented - as well as an Atheist display. Since this is a difficult and often expensive undertaking, it's easiest for government institutions to avoid any and all endorsements of religion in order to adhere to our most basic laws.
It's not that difficult of a concept, you know?
Thanks for playing, though.
"It's not that difficult of a concept, you know? Thanks for playing"
I usually don't respond to children, you know those that can't have an adult discussion without resorting to childish insults making them feel like they are SOOO superior to others, but, I will just this once.
Most intelligent people consider the Bill of Rights just as important and even part of, the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ALSO said black were NOT WHOLE people. Many decisions have reversed by previos Courts. They are NOT infallible.
I go by what the FOUNDING FATHERS DID more then what ANYONE "interprets" what they say. "It's not that difficult of a concept, you know?"
Words cane be interpreted differently. Actions cannot.
If you want to believe people who DIDN'T write the Bill of Rights and the Constitution instead if those that did, that is YOUR
""impeding the free exercise of religion,..." So, what does THAT mean to you? To me, it says people are FREE to practice what ever they want. I don't see anything about WHERE they can practice. Do you?
If it was good enough for Adam's, Jefferson etc. to "Exercise" in the Capitol and for the gov't to put the 10 Commandments throughout the Supreme Court building and religious things in other GOVERNMENT buildings it is good enough for ALL Americans.
So, you see you aren't as smart as you think you are with your condescending way.
So, let's get this straight. The Founding Father's, you know the ones who WROTE all those silly documents, thought it was OK to "practice" religion in public buildings and you don't think it should be allowed. HMM, who should I believe? "It's not that difficult of a concept, you know?"
"It doesn't allow any school-sponsored religious display". Where does it say that anywhere?
I guess you want to tear down the Capitol in Wash, D.C. and the Supreme Court building, the Wash. Monument and all the other federal buildings that have religious carvings and pictures painted in them.
Are you aware Adams, Jefferson and many other Founding Fathers attended religious service that were HELD in the Capitol itself.
If it it was good enough for those that wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence etc., it is good enough for me.
Like the Constitution says, Freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion, contrary to what some of you think.
But if someone at the school DOES have a problem with it that's all that matters. We all know REALISTICALLY it really shouldn't be there if anyone has a problem with it. Religion isn't something we should be baiting others with to fight over, but we sure do love to do that don't we?
What? What a complete farce. If we removed everything that anyone might object to, eventually the only thing left in the world would be one person sitting in an empty white room, and that room would be next.
The 1st Amendment was designed specifically to address such nonsensical, self anointment of supreme authority falsely claimed by zealots.
The protection of free speech was not put there to protect popular speech ... it is there to protect unpopular speech. The free expression of religion is protected because there will always be someone that objects to something. And it doesn't even matter if the MAJORITY objects ... it's still protected. The idea that one person can dictate to the rest ... well, that is about the most absurd claim made so far. Congratulations.
It doesn't matter what you or I think of this picture.
It is against the establishment clause.
It is breaking laws.
It is promoting a specific religion.
Have at all the pictures of your gods that you like, in your own home, in your own car, in your own room.
Not in a public space.
Sorry, I disagree.
Please explain that the Founding Fathers, who wrote the documents, attended religious service IN THE CAPITOL itself and OK'd MANY religious symbols in gov't buildings supports your opinion?.
I heard about this. I could see if it was a picture of Hitler. But why get rid of Jesus. He was a good guy? This reminds me of the removal of the ten commandments out of the court house. It was not the separation of church and state that was achieved. It was the separation of law from a house of law. Where is the common sense? There is nothing offensive about Christ. He should be celebrated on a human level for having tremendous intelligence. Would they remove a picture of Steven Hawkings?
"It doesn't allow any school-sponsored religious display". Where does it say that anywhere?
I guess you want to tear down the Capitol in Wash, D.C. and the Supreme Court building, the Wash. Monument and all the other federal buildings that have religious carvings and pictures painted in them.
Are you aware Adams, Jefferson and many other Founding Fathers attended religious service that were HELD in the Capitol itself.
If it it was good enough for those that wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence etc., it is good enough for me.
Like the Constitution says, Freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion, contrary to what some of you think.
Satan and his faithful followers aren't going to like this very much You have a lot of nerve injecting the truth into this conversation ... how dare you!!!
The designer of that frieze, Adolph Weinman, wrote a letter to the architect explaining that this graven image represents the “Majesty of the Law,” sitting beside the “Majesty of Government,” and that the Roman numerals I-X stand for the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights? [That letter is on file in the archives of the Supreme Court. It is unsigned because it was probably a copy for record-keeping.]
Well, I'll be... Weichert is right, and I will stop posting from memory.
I heard about this. I could see if it was a picture of Hitler. But why get rid of Jesus. He was a good guy? This reminds me of the removal of the ten commandments out of the court house. It was not the separation of church and state that was achieved. It was the separation of law from a house of law. Where is the common sense? There is nothing offensive about Christ. He should be celebrated on a human level for having tremendous intelligence. Would they remove a picture of Steven Hawkings?
Hawking is a living human being. There is evidence of his existence. There is no evidence that an actual biblical Jesus ever lived. At best, the story of Jesus is apocryphal.
Moreover, what did he look like? How can you come up with a depiction of someone that NO ONE has ever seen? Or should we just go with the normal American depiction of the fair skinned guy with blonde hair and blue eyes?
We don't need any pics of religious figures in public school. It looks like an endorsement whether it is or not. You can easily givr kids a cursory look at Christianity's place in the world without any pics of Jesus hanging on the walls.
What? What a complete farce. If we removed everything that anyone might object to, eventually the only thing left in the world would be one person sitting in an empty white room, and that room would be next.
The 1st Amendment was designed specifically to address such nonsensical, self anointment of supreme authority falsely claimed by zealots.
The protection of free speech was not put there to protect popular speech ... it is there to protect unpopular speech. The free expression of religion is protected because there will always be someone that objects to something. And it doesn't even matter if the MAJORITY objects ... it's still protected. The idea that one person can dictate to the rest ... well, that is about the most absurd claim made so far. Congratulations.
What if that one person is actually right?
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.
If we removed everything that anyone might object to, eventually the only thing left in the world would be one person sitting in an empty white room, and that room would be next.
You have a lot of nerve injecting the truth into this conversation ... how dare you!!! 
