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.
What if the court rulings that established precedent were wrong?
You have, actually. I've seen you take a few folks to task and bash their religion. If you'd like I can provide links.
Irony.
Again, would you like me to post a list of things states allow or disallow that would be a violation of your favored reading of the 14th Amendment? Like it or not, you do seem to have a double standard on this.
Yes of course legal scholars can be wrong...
That someone can be wrong is not a good argument when it comes to determining what is wrong and what is right. What's wrong with simply sticking to the purpose of the meeting?
That someone can be wrong is not a good argument when it comes to determining what is wrong and what is right. What's wrong with simply sticking to the purpose of the meeting?
How about instead we actually read the words of what the Constitution says? I don't care what some legal scholar says that has no authority. If a "legal scholar" told you black men should be slaves, should we do it? Of course not. That would be wrong.
It's the same argument I make in regards to what the Bible says versus what a church might teach. We have a rule book. In Christianity it's the bible. In our nation, it's the Constitution.
You should read how the legal scholars have understood the 14th Amendment and what court rulings have used it and what legal precedents have been established. I'm not bashing anybody's religion. I think it's a shame you don't understand the basics of the legal system we live under.
It's always a shame when someone gets their information through a funnel that weeds out diverse perspectives. It is a tactic constantly used by organized religion, and always has been.
How about instead we actually read the words of what the Constitution says? I don't care what some legal scholar says that has no authority. If a "legal scholar" told you black men should be slaves, should we do it? Of course not. That would be wrong.
It's the same argument I make in regards to what the Bible says versus what a church might teach. We have a rule book. In Christianity it's the bible. In our nation, it's the Constitution.
I would suggest that YOU, of all people, shouldn't take us back to a discussion about slavery.
. According to Lyle Denniston the constitutional prescription for legislative prayers is based on eight factors. These factors are:[11]
Legislative prayers are not confined to meetings of Congress or state legislatures, but may also be recited in the more intimate and familiar setting of local government meetings.
The prayer portion of the meeting must be conducted only during a ceremonial part of the government body’s session, not mixed in with action on official policy.
The body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer and (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain. The officials on the body may also join in the prayer by bowing their heads or showing other signs of religious devotion, such as crossing themselves.
The body may not dictate what is in the prayers and what may not be in the prayers. A prayer may invoke the deity or deities of a given faith, and need not embrace the beliefs of multiple or all faiths.
In allowing “sectarian” prayers, the body’s members may not “proselytize” i.e. promoting one faith as the true faith, and may not require persons of different faith preferences, or of no faith, to take part, and may not criticize them if they do not take part.
The “sectarian” prayers may not disparage or discriminate against a specific faith, but officials need not go to extra lengths to make sure that all faiths do get represented in the prayer sessions — even if that means one faith winds up as the dominant message.
Such prayers are permissible when most, if not all, of the audience is made up of adults.
A court, in hearing a challenge to a prayer practice, is confined to examining “a pattern of prayers,” and does not have the authority to second-guess the content of individual prayer utterances. In judging such a pattern, the proper test is not whether it tends to put forth predominantly the beliefs of one faith, but whether it has the effect of coercing individuals who do not share that faith.
I'm just not going to let you and your radical opinions off the hook.
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.
