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.
There is no Buddist god. And hindus have more than one god. This is a clear endorsement of one particular theological view (monotheism) over others (polytheism, atheism). It has been ruled constitutional on dubious historical precent reasons not b/c it doesn't violate the 1st amendment. In any event, "In god we trust" doesn't offend me, it amuses me. To me it is like "in unicorn we trust". Laughable.
How can the government stop me from calling myself "Mr. Brain Surgeon" when there is freedom of speech? How can we have 'anti-gang loitering ' laws when there is a constitutional right to assemble? How is wearing a message t-shirt speech? It would be cruel and unusual punishment for me to be arrested at all, so how could this happen in America?
Well, there is a thing called constitutional interpretation. You can't apply the constitutional literally so judges must interpret it. If you disagree with the judges, you call them 'liberal activists'.
How can the government stop me from calling myself "Mr. Brain Surgeon" when there is freedom of speech? How can we have 'anti-gang loitering ' laws when there is a constitutional right to assemble? How is wearing a message t-shirt speech? It would be cruel and unusual punishment for me to be arrested at all, so how could this happen in America?
Well, there is a thing called constitutional interpretation. You can't apply the constitutional literally so judges must interpret it. If you disagree with the judges, you call them 'liberal activists'.
You can call yourself anythng you want. Just don't try to practice neurosurgery. Except maybe on fishmonger.
The judges who have twisted our culture into one which rejects a secular holiday like Christmas are neither liberal nor conservative. They are simply fools.
I trust myself and my ability to observe facts. I don't trust Congress as a body, but there is tangible evidence they exist. Not so for unicorns, dracula, Thor, biblegod, the six armed elephant hindu god, Zues, Hercules, virgin born humans- all mythical creatures are equally laughable in my opinion. But I don't care if they "honored" on money to appease the masses- it's no skin off my nose.
Yes, but since the 1st amendment deals with church and state, they seem more accurate to the discussion.
But court decisions have made the old man persona non grata, because he's kinda sorta related to the holiday (which the courts all observe, of course). I find that hypocritical and crypto-fascistic.
I trust myself and my ability to observe facts. I don't trust Congress as a body, but there is tangible evidence they exist. Not so for unicorns, dracula, Thor, biblegod, the six armed elephant hindu god, Zues, Hercules, virgin born humans- all mythical creatures are equally laughable in my opinion. But I don't care if they "honored" on money to appease the masses- it's no skin off my nose.
Next time you need surgery, tell them you want to go to St. Unicorn Hospital.
Go ahead and set them all up--but do it on private property. Why do you need or want the government to help you out?
I don't expect government to help. I just don't feel that the federal government has a basis in the 1st amendment to prohibit the lesser governments or any local government supported agency from helping if they feel it fits in with their community.
A number of suits have been pressed against private groups for spending their funds to set up these exhibits at locations owned or maintained by public funds. There is no competing use that is dislocated by these exhibits at the time, nor are any funds being spent specifically for these exhibits, beyond what would be spent for the general upkeep of the property if the exhibit were not present. These cases would appear to me to be a restriction of the activity rather than trying to prevent public expenditures to promote any religion. Any funding involved would be spent regardless of the use of the facility so cannot be considered a promotional expenditure.
I believe that if a agency wants to allow something based on their assesment of the constituency, it should be allowed to even if that something is religious in nature. I think that religious exhibits should be held to the same scrutiny as non-religious exhibits in regard to community standards and legal statues concerning displays, but no more than other exhibits are subjected to.
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.