beagle9
Diamond Member
- Nov 28, 2011
- 44,379
- 16,537
- Thread starter
- #481
Okay, now I'm confused...
So if there is a seperation of church and state (which was never the intent of the constition) why is the court sticking it's nose in the business of this chuch. And for the record, the establishment clause was suppose to keep the government OUT of religion, not the other way around.
Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Seems to me that the Establishment Clause was meant to keep religion out of government (respecting an establishment of religion), and to keep government out of religion (prohibit the free exercise thereof).
"Establishment Clause": Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion(i.e. otherwise it is not to place it's signature upon any legislation by contract of or by stamp there of, that which would bind them, restrain them, or hinder them (congress) in their daily works, in which is to initiate and/or act upon it's duties to uphold the constitution, in which is to be done without various religious restraints placed upon them while doing so by a contract thus entered into by signature or by stamp. These would be things by engagement of, in which would then bind, restrain, or hinder them upon doing the works of the people by said religious restraints, in which they would have agreed upon by signature and/or by stamp).
Therefore a binding to by signature or by stamp, would then recognize by contract, and would establish a religion by contract, in which it would then be tied to or bound by in recognition of, and this be it all due to it's signature in contract there of and/or by stamp there of as entered into.
They (congress) shall also make no restriction of (or) prohibition of, upon the free exercise therefore of a religion, and also the free expression or excersize therefore of it, and this as pertaining to a religion being practiced and/or religiously expressed by the people within a state or states, that do agree upon the same issues within these states, for which is then agreed upon by the citizens as to be found in a majority within each issue and within each state these issues may be brought in. Otherwsie, if states are then joined together upon such an issue, in which each state may be battling on together as pertaining to the same issue, then this is ok just as well, but the feds/congress should also decline or recuse themselves from these issues at the federal level, in order to let those states decide the outcome for themselves in each case as may be joined together on such an issue or issues.
However, religion or the expression therefore of it, is not to be forced or agreed upon by any (government mandate) from a federal level, in which there would be none, be it by signature or by stamp, that is to be found in regards to or upon "any religious issue" and/or upon the free expression therefore of it. The government cannot force or agree with a single complaintant or complaintants, where as it would somehow be forcing it's will or opinion (key words) upon that individual or individuals who are either a minority or a majority in a case or multi-ple cases as it may then be brought by that individual to the federal government against the majority who opose them as a minority within a state or states on such an issue. In summary- The government will respect and not enforce by (government mandate), any religion upon any opposed majority or minority against it's will, that which is also found within this nation just as well within these issues. It is of my opinion that the girl was not forced to observe the banner against her will, so it then fell under the majority rule in the case, as to be found within the state and/or within the community within the state by jurisdiction of, in order that the majorities rights be protected in this specific case as it should have been.
This is my opinion of the two clauses and their meanings maybe, and thus we need always to take these issues to a vote, in order to understand where the true majority sits, and where the minority also sits within these issues. It is the only way for the people on either side, to not be abused by another as is what has happened within this specific case, thus leaving congress to get on with more important issues, especially once these issues have been worked out by the people freely and justly through their votes as it should be.
We must not allow the minority to continue to mis-use the power of this government, to thwart the will of the people in a majority, thus making the government as a "dictatorship" afterwards upon the majority when used in this away.
It is of my opinion that these issues be settled within the state or states, and not to be settled or placed before congress to settle at the federal level (thus we then risk becoming a dictatorship as it will soon afterwards quickly arise), where as therefore by this action of letting the congress decide for the state or states as joined together on the issue or issues, would then allow for outside influences to enter into the case from other states by influence there of, in which would then cause confusion and mayhem to occur within the state or states, in which the case or cases like this is being heard from within, just as it has occured upon this issue being delt with now in concerning this banner.
Let the people within the state decide always, and keep the issue between the people that are directly affected by these issues in the state, and leave congress to do what they are supposed to do, and that is to run the federal government free from the constraints of these issues and problems, that which are pertaining to the state and not pertaining to the union as a whole.
Last edited: