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 a woman who spills a cup of hot coffee on herself can turn around and sue the business that sold it to her]
That wasn't just a case of a woman spilling hot coffee. It was a case of the coffee being way too hot, hot enough to give her third degree burns through her sweat suit. It was a case of this company having had about 700 similiar incidents previously. It was a case of the company knowing something was wrong with that coffee but declaring in an internal memo that they wouldn't do anything about it because it'd be cheaper to handle it on a case by case basis. And finally it was a case of this woman at first asking nothing more then that they pay for her medical bills
In the US an individual has the right to express their particular point of view, even a President, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Establishment Clause because no law has been created. A President who prays or advocates a particular religious point of view does not establish government policy.
You did note the part where Obama is not inlcuded as a defendant, did you not?
There are House and Senate chaplains. Maybe Michael Newdow would like to focus on getting rid of them.
A la James Madison...
The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation? [If] it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense.
-- James Madison
Chaplaincy laws have survived based upon accommodation of free exercise by those called by the government to distant lands and posts where ministers of professed religions were not available. Washington DC was such a place in the early days of the republic. It is not any longer. There are congregations of every imaginable sort in this city today. Any Congressman or Senator could with ease walk into the house of any denomination of his choice. While the case for (diverse) military chaplains might survive given that troops may today be projected into any area of the world at all, the case for paying $132,000 per year for Congressional chaplains is long since expired.
Do any atheist/secular folks worry that people like Newdow make atheism look bad? Like they're not tolerant of any public displays of religion? I feel kind of sorry for you guys that people like Newdow (or those like him) get all the press and become the defacto face of atheism in America, when I'm sure most atheists aren't like that.
No, it's just the "uppity" ones who are like that, I guess. Most atheists by the way are staunch defenders of the right of the individual to display religion in public. It's just when the government gets involved that problems tend to arise. You can go preach on the sidewalk all you want. But the government can't hire people to go out and do that...
Me too. I feel so sorry for atheists. All they want, after all, is the freedom to mock and ridicule Christians. But they're okay with Muslims, for some reason. Maybe it's cowardice.
Or it could be simple ignorance on your part. Look into any of the atheist organizatrions with an international outreach and focus and you will find scathing rebukes of Muslim abuses. Just another case here of Christians wanting to be special...but you're not...
American constitution incorporated the idea of a secular nation, not a Christian nation. This is pretty clear in the first amendment, to keep religion out of government and government out of religion. This was done to ensure a secular America where all religion are respected.
So, I guess if you don't like what the Constitution really says, you can just arbitrarily assign it meanings that fly in the face of the actual words used. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"This is pretty clear in the first amendment, to keep religion out of government and government out of religion."
It's pretty clear that "Congress shall make no law" is a restriction on what Congress may do and applies to no one else. Hate on religion all you like, the words don't support your assertions. No restriction is to be placed on citizens freely exercising their right to practice their religion as they see fit. I see the part that prohibits government from involving itself with the business of religions. Perhaps you could explain to me how the above statement restricts religious persons from involving themselves in the business of government to include my pastor or Rick Warren. And don't just say that's what it means. Quote the actual words you use to make your assertion.
It's pretty clear that "Congress shall make no law" is a restriction on what Congress may do and applies to no one else.
Are you saying that state and local governments may close down newspapers whose editorials they disagree with because the proscription against that applies only to Congress? Are you familiar with the 14th Amendemnt, with the doctrine of incorporation, or with any First Amendment jurisprudence at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Hate on religion all you like, the words don't support your assertions. No restriction is to be placed on citizens freely exercising their right to practice their religion as they see fit.
There are very strong restrictions placed upon those who believe that "free exercise" comprises the right to accomplish an "establishment" of their particular religious views. Religion is an inidvidual matter in this country. Your religious rights expire at the tips of your fingers. You may not reach out and touch anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
I see the part that prohibits government from involving itself with the business of religions. Perhaps you could explain to me how the above statement restricts religious persons from involving themselves in the business of government to include my pastor or Rick Warren.
Compare and contrast to the government reaching out to involve your pastor or any other in the conduct of an official government exercise. Do you see any difference?
That wasn't just a case of a woman spilling hot coffee. It was a case of the coffee being way too hot, hot enough to give her third degree burns through her sweat suit. It was a case of this company having had about 700 similiar incidents previously. It was a case of the company knowing something was wrong with that coffee but declaring in an internal memo that they wouldn't do anything about it because it'd be cheaper to handle it on a case by case basis. And finally it was a case of this woman at first asking nothing more then that they pay for her medical bills
Yes, the pop-culture version of the McDonald's coffee suit as promoted by boneheads such as John Stossel is quite at odds with the actual version, and you've got most of the actual version correct. One clarification...willful negligence was found in having used the same cheap styrofoam containers to serve 190-degree coffee (50 degrees hotter than the Shriners Burn Center recommendation) to drive-thru customers as to eat-in customers. Company officials testified that their coffee was unfit for human consumption as served since it would cause instant burns to the mouth and throat, that they did indeed have more than 700 similar cases in their files, and that they had looked into using a different cup for drive-thru service but decided against it simply because a safer cup would be more expensive and therefore reduce profits. As the trial judge indicated, this was a case of deliberately reckless and callous disregard for public safety.
The actual case is a condemnation of free-market capitalism. The pop-culture version is a condemnation of overly litigious consumers. Guess which one has been given more circulation...
atheistism one of the most organized religions in the united states
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.
But they're okay with Muslims, for some reason. Maybe it's cowardice. 
