Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Foxfyre]

Sure wish I would've gotten an answer to this question .

Separation of church and state was important to the Founders only in the sense that government would have no power over the Church and the Church would have no power over the government. The first would be a direct violation of unalienable rights; the second would reinstitute the miserable system in which corrupt Popes, Archbishops, or Mullah or any facsimile of these could enforce an establishment of religion which the Constitution expressly forbids.

It was never intended to prevent a prayer at a football game or a creche on a courthouse lawn or kids reading the Bible at show and tell.

All of Islam objects to this concept as do some radical Atheists and a few radical Christians and others, all of whom would prefer to see their concept of religion as the only one tolerated. The First Amendment clearly protects us from the ambitions of these radicals and the chances of the First Amendment being nullified or changed are nil EXCEPT to change wording to strengthen the concept as the courts too often get it wrong.

Amending the Constitution is a really big deal. Over the past Of thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

My son played 4 seasons of high school football. He and every one of his team mates prayed all they wanted to in every game. Same with any citizen or fan there.
What you can not do is ORGANIZE a group prayer where everyone prays or watches everyone else pray to the organized by the school effort.
And I sit in amazement about what the big deal is with that.
You can not go 2 hours, watch a football game without having a group prayer? Why can't you pray to yourself? Do you have to do it inagroup to prove something?
Why does one have to read the Bible at show and tell? Why can't parents teach their kids religion at home?
I do not want organized religion at school, period. It serves NO purpose there.

The folks in your community should decide whether there will be a prayer at say a football game or whatever. Or they should decide that they don't want that. The government should not have the power to say there will or won't be prayer anywhere. If the U.S. Congress can use the people's money to have chaplain to provide a morning prayer for THEM, how can the government deny something that is appreciated and comforting in small town USA or anywhere?

Student led prayers at school assemblies were the norm when I was in school. They still should be if the student body wants that. We also recited the Pledge of Allegiance, including 'under God', and sang the National Anthem with gusto. We would have hated for those rights to be taken away, and it didn't turn a single one of us into a religious fanatic so far as I know, and I'm pretty sure it didn't persuade a single student to change his/her religion from whatever it was. The government should not presume to dictate whether students can do this or not.

The only problem is if anybody is REQUIRED to take off their hat or bow or otherwise give 'respect' to the prayer or to agree with it or endorse or embrace the religious concept from which it comes. To the best of my knowledge that has never been required.

In my opinion, the nation has become more angry, more coarse, more violent, more unpleasant the more the few, angry, prejudiced and bitter force their 'no religious expression' religion on everybody else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Separation of church and state was important to the Founders only in the sense that government would have no power over the Church and the Church would have no power over the government. The first would be a direct violation of unalienable rights; the second would reinstitute the miserable system in which corrupt Popes, Archbishops, or Mullah or any facsimile of these could enforce an establishment of religion which the Constitution expressly forbids.

It was never intended to prevent a prayer at a football game or a creche on a courthouse lawn or kids reading the Bible at show and tell.

All of Islam objects to this concept as do some radical Atheists and a few radical Christians and others, all of whom would prefer to see their concept of religion as the only one tolerated. The First Amendment clearly protects us from the ambitions of these radicals and the chances of the First Amendment being nullified or changed are nil EXCEPT to change wording to strengthen the concept as the courts too often get it wrong.

Amending the Constitution is a really big deal. Over the past Of thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

My son played 4 seasons of high school football. He and every one of his team mates prayed all they wanted to in every game. Same with any citizen or fan there.
What you can not do is ORGANIZE a group prayer where everyone prays or watches everyone else pray to the organized by the school effort.
And I sit in amazement about what the big deal is with that.
You can not go 2 hours, watch a football game without having a group prayer? Why can't you pray to yourself? Do you have to do it inagroup to prove something?
Why does one have to read the Bible at show and tell? Why can't parents teach their kids religion at home?
I do not want organized religion at school, period. It serves NO purpose there.

The folks in your community should decide whether there will be a prayer at say a football game or whatever. Or they should decide that they don't want that. The government should not have the power to say there will or won't be prayer anywhere. If the U.S. Congress can use the people's money to have chaplain to provide a morning prayer for THEM, how can the government deny something that is appreciated and comforting in small town USA or anywhere?

Student led prayers at school assemblies were the norm when I was in school. They still should be if the student body wants that. We also recited the Pledge of Allegiance, including 'under God', and sang the National Anthem with gusto. We would have hated for those rights to be taken away, and it didn't turn a single one of us into a religious fanatic so far as I know, and I'm pretty sure it didn't persuade a single student to change his/her religion from whatever it was. The government should not presume to dictate whether students can do this or not.

The only problem is if anybody is REQUIRED to take off their hat or bow or otherwise give 'respect' to the prayer or to agree with it or endorse or embrace the religious concept from which it comes. To the best of my knowledge that has never been required.

In my opinion, the nation has become more angry, more coarse, more violent, more unpleasant the more the few, angry, prejudiced and bitter force their 'no religious expression' religion on everybody else.

You answered your question in your first paragraph. Santa Fe ISD found this out clearly. The folks in a community do not have the power to decide on religious expression on tax-supported property and activities.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Separation of church and state was important to the Founders only in the sense that government would have no power over the Church and the Church would have no power over the government. The first would be a direct violation of unalienable rights; the second would reinstitute the miserable system in which corrupt Popes, Archbishops, or Mullah or any facsimile of these could enforce an establishment of religion which the Constitution expressly forbids.

It was never intended to prevent a prayer at a football game or a creche on a courthouse lawn or kids reading the Bible at show and tell.

All of Islam objects to this concept as do some radical Atheists and a few radical Christians and others, all of whom would prefer to see their concept of religion as the only one tolerated. The First Amendment clearly protects us from the ambitions of these radicals and the chances of the First Amendment being nullified or changed are nil EXCEPT to change wording to strengthen the concept as the courts too often get it wrong.

Amending the Constitution is a really big deal. Over the past Of thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

My son played 4 seasons of high school football. He and every one of his team mates prayed all they wanted to in every game. Same with any citizen or fan there.
What you can not do is ORGANIZE a group prayer where everyone prays or watches everyone else pray to the organized by the school effort.
And I sit in amazement about what the big deal is with that.
You can not go 2 hours, watch a football game without having a group prayer? Why can't you pray to yourself? Do you have to do it inagroup to prove something?
Why does one have to read the Bible at show and tell? Why can't parents teach their kids religion at home?
I do not want organized religion at school, period. It serves NO purpose there.

The folks in your community should decide whether there will be a prayer at say a football game or whatever. Or they should decide that they don't want that. The government should not have the power to say there will or won't be prayer anywhere. If the U.S. Congress can use the people's money to have chaplain to provide a morning prayer for THEM, how can the government deny something that is appreciated and comforting in small town USA or anywhere?

Student led prayers at school assemblies were the norm when I was in school. They still should be if the student body wants that. We also recited the Pledge of Allegiance, including 'under God', and sang the National Anthem with gusto. We would have hated for those rights to be taken away, and it didn't turn a single one of us into a religious fanatic so far as I know, and I'm pretty sure it didn't persuade a single student to change his/her religion from whatever it was. The government should not presume to dictate whether students can do this or not.

The only problem is if anybody is REQUIRED to take off their hat or bow or otherwise give 'respect' to the prayer or to agree with it or endorse or embrace the religious concept from which it comes. To the best of my knowledge that has never been required.

In my opinion, the nation has become more angry, more coarse, more violent, more unpleasant the more the few, angry, prejudiced and bitter force their 'no religious expression' religion on everybody else.

I never see the tiniest shred of "no religious expression" anywhere in society despite all this recent victim talk I've been hearing.

I'm 26, so I guess it wasn't that far back, and in my public high school every single day I saw Bibles/crosses/christian related clothing.

I see churches everywhere, religious billboards, christian influence everywhere and I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Separation of church and state isn't the least bit oppressive of anyone or their views, quite the opposite actually.

 

[Texanmike]

Sure wish I would've gotten an answer to this question .

Separation of church and state was important to the Founders only in the sense that government would have no power over the Church and the Church would have no power over the government. The first would be a direct violation of unalienable rights; the second would reinstitute the miserable system in which corrupt Popes, Archbishops, or Mullah or any facsimile of these could enforce an establishment of religion which the Constitution expressly forbids.

It was never intended to prevent a prayer at a football game or a creche on a courthouse lawn or kids reading the Bible at show and tell.

All of Islam objects to this concept as do some radical Atheists and a few radical Christians and others, all of whom would prefer to see their concept of religion as the only one tolerated. The First Amendment clearly protects us from the ambitions of these radicals and the chances of the First Amendment being nullified or changed are nil EXCEPT to change wording to strengthen the concept as the courts too often get it wrong.

Amending the Constitution is a really big deal. Over the past 223 YEARS, of thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

That seems a little ironic to me, the only people who I see that like the fact that government endorses a religion are some christians, and that's because our government endorses christianity.

I certainly don't want government endorsing my view of a god(s) not existing, I don't need government backing to have my view. I've never heard any muslim say the US gov't should endorse Islam, but I do hear some christians get angry at the idea of "only" being able to put mangers up on private property, the 10 commandments on private property, etc etc.

Hi. I'm Mike. I was making an argument that had nothing to do with a specific religion. Oh, you'd like to overlook that argument and say its based on my Christianity? Conveniently ignore the very reasons I gave you for my feeling because they don't fit your little profile.


Mike

 

[Texanmike]

My son played 4 seasons of high school football. He and every one of his team mates prayed all they wanted to in every game. Same with any citizen or fan there.
What you can not do is ORGANIZE a group prayer where everyone prays or watches everyone else pray to the organized by the school effort.
And I sit in amazement about what the big deal is with that.
You can not go 2 hours, watch a football game without having a group prayer? Why can't you pray to yourself? Do you have to do it inagroup to prove something?
Why does one have to read the Bible at show and tell? Why can't parents teach their kids religion at home?
I do not want organized religion at school, period. It serves NO purpose there.

The folks in your community should decide whether there will be a prayer at say a football game or whatever. Or they should decide that they don't want that. The government should not have the power to say there will or won't be prayer anywhere. If the U.S. Congress can use the people's money to have chaplain to provide a morning prayer for THEM, how can the government deny something that is appreciated and comforting in small town USA or anywhere?

Student led prayers at school assemblies were the norm when I was in school. They still should be if the student body wants that. We also recited the Pledge of Allegiance, including 'under God', and sang the National Anthem with gusto. We would have hated for those rights to be taken away, and it didn't turn a single one of us into a religious fanatic so far as I know, and I'm pretty sure it didn't persuade a single student to change his/her religion from whatever it was. The government should not presume to dictate whether students can do this or not.

The only problem is if anybody is REQUIRED to take off their hat or bow or otherwise give 'respect' to the prayer or to agree with it or endorse or embrace the religious concept from which it comes. To the best of my knowledge that has never been required.

In my opinion, the nation has become more angry, more coarse, more violent, more unpleasant the more the few, angry, prejudiced and bitter force their 'no religious expression' religion on everybody else.

I never see the tiniest shred of "no religious expression" anywhere in society despite all this recent victim talk I've been hearing.

I'm 26, so I guess it wasn't that far back, and in my public high school every single day I saw Bibles/crosses/christian related clothing.

I see churches everywhere, religious billboards, christian influence everywhere and I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Separation of church and state isn't the least bit oppressive of anyone or their views, quite the opposite actually.

OK. This is a little larger than the thread but its a question I suggest you think about before furthering your political ideology.

Who defines what oppression is? The oppressor or the oppressed?

Can you really tell me that someone's not religiously oppressed because you say they aren't?

That is the reason for local government. Seriously, go read the Freeman's Pennsylvania Packet contributions. Tell me how well that's worked out for us.

Mike

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In other words, Dr. Drock, given that you apparently lean libertarian, how did you manage to think from what I wrote that I don't care about minority rights? I obviously do. What else was I to think when you utterly missed the point I was making?

It's hard to pick out the point of what someone is making when their first post in the discussion is littered with childish insults.



Then I made the mistake of following up childish insults with childish insults of my own when I should've just ignored you in the first place.

Not childish insults, but contempt for the hypocrisy and tyranny of lefty.

 

[Texanmike]

My son played 4 seasons of high school football. He and every one of his team mates prayed all they wanted to in every game. Same with any citizen or fan there.
What you can not do is ORGANIZE a group prayer where everyone prays or watches everyone else pray to the organized by the school effort.
And I sit in amazement about what the big deal is with that.
You can not go 2 hours, watch a football game without having a group prayer? Why can't you pray to yourself? Do you have to do it inagroup to prove something?
Why does one have to read the Bible at show and tell? Why can't parents teach their kids religion at home?
I do not want organized religion at school, period. It serves NO purpose there.

The folks in your community should decide whether there will be a prayer at say a football game or whatever. Or they should decide that they don't want that. The government should not have the power to say there will or won't be prayer anywhere. If the U.S. Congress can use the people's money to have chaplain to provide a morning prayer for THEM, how can the government deny something that is appreciated and comforting in small town USA or anywhere?

Student led prayers at school assemblies were the norm when I was in school. They still should be if the student body wants that. We also recited the Pledge of Allegiance, including 'under God', and sang the National Anthem with gusto. We would have hated for those rights to be taken away, and it didn't turn a single one of us into a religious fanatic so far as I know, and I'm pretty sure it didn't persuade a single student to change his/her religion from whatever it was. The government should not presume to dictate whether students can do this or not.

The only problem is if anybody is REQUIRED to take off their hat or bow or otherwise give 'respect' to the prayer or to agree with it or endorse or embrace the religious concept from which it comes. To the best of my knowledge that has never been required.

In my opinion, the nation has become more angry, more coarse, more violent, more unpleasant the more the few, angry, prejudiced and bitter force their 'no religious expression' religion on everybody else.

You answered your question in your first paragraph. Santa Fe ISD found this out clearly. The folks in a community do not have the power to decide on religious expression on tax-supported property and activities.

Hmm... sounds like we're from similar parts of Houston.

Mike

 

[Dr.Drock]

Separation of church and state was important to the Founders only in the sense that government would have no power over the Church and the Church would have no power over the government. The first would be a direct violation of unalienable rights; the second would reinstitute the miserable system in which corrupt Popes, Archbishops, or Mullah or any facsimile of these could enforce an establishment of religion which the Constitution expressly forbids.

It was never intended to prevent a prayer at a football game or a creche on a courthouse lawn or kids reading the Bible at show and tell.

All of Islam objects to this concept as do some radical Atheists and a few radical Christians and others, all of whom would prefer to see their concept of religion as the only one tolerated. The First Amendment clearly protects us from the ambitions of these radicals and the chances of the First Amendment being nullified or changed are nil EXCEPT to change wording to strengthen the concept as the courts too often get it wrong.

Amending the Constitution is a really big deal. Over the past 223 YEARS, of thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

That seems a little ironic to me, the only people who I see that like the fact that government endorses a religion are some christians, and that's because our government endorses christianity.

I certainly don't want government endorsing my view of a god(s) not existing, I don't need government backing to have my view. I've never heard any muslim say the US gov't should endorse Islam, but I do hear some christians get angry at the idea of "only" being able to put mangers up on private property, the 10 commandments on private property, etc etc.

Hi. I'm Mike. I was making an argument that had nothing to do with a specific religion. Oh, you'd like to overlook that argument and say its based on my Christianity? Conveniently ignore the very reasons I gave you for my feeling because they don't fit your little profile.


Mike

I specifically said some christians, certainly not all, so no I don't have a little profile for people of a certain religion.

Most christians I've dealt with don't care about not being able to put up a manger at city hall in christmas time because they're everywhere on church lawns and anywhere else citizens want to put them. There's just a small minority who complain about it, just like there's a small minority of agnostics/atheists who complain about silly things in terms of religion and government.

 

[Texanmike]

That seems a little ironic to me, the only people who I see that like the fact that government endorses a religion are some christians, and that's because our government endorses christianity.

I certainly don't want government endorsing my view of a god(s) not existing, I don't need government backing to have my view. I've never heard any muslim say the US gov't should endorse Islam, but I do hear some christians get angry at the idea of "only" being able to put mangers up on private property, the 10 commandments on private property, etc etc.

Hi. I'm Mike. I was making an argument that had nothing to do with a specific religion. Oh, you'd like to overlook that argument and say its based on my Christianity? Conveniently ignore the very reasons I gave you for my feeling because they don't fit your little profile.


Mike

I specifically said some christians, certainly not all, so no I don't have a little profile for people of a certain religion.

Most christians I've dealt with don't care about not being able to put up a manger at city hall in christmas time because they're everyone on church lawns and anywhere else citizens want to put them. There's just a small minority who complain about it, just like there's a small minority of agnostics/atheists who complain about silly things in terms of religion and government.

That seems a little ironic to me, the only people who I see that like the fact that government endorses a religion are

I thought you were putting me in this group since I want local government to be able to influenc religion while avoiding national policy.

Mike

 

[Dr.Drock]

The folks in your community should decide whether there will be a prayer at say a football game or whatever. Or they should decide that they don't want that. The government should not have the power to say there will or won't be prayer anywhere. If the U.S. Congress can use the people's money to have chaplain to provide a morning prayer for THEM, how can the government deny something that is appreciated and comforting in small town USA or anywhere?

Student led prayers at school assemblies were the norm when I was in school. They still should be if the student body wants that. We also recited the Pledge of Allegiance, including 'under God', and sang the National Anthem with gusto. We would have hated for those rights to be taken away, and it didn't turn a single one of us into a religious fanatic so far as I know, and I'm pretty sure it didn't persuade a single student to change his/her religion from whatever it was. The government should not presume to dictate whether students can do this or not.

The only problem is if anybody is REQUIRED to take off their hat or bow or otherwise give 'respect' to the prayer or to agree with it or endorse or embrace the religious concept from which it comes. To the best of my knowledge that has never been required.

In my opinion, the nation has become more angry, more coarse, more violent, more unpleasant the more the few, angry, prejudiced and bitter force their 'no religious expression' religion on everybody else.

I never see the tiniest shred of "no religious expression" anywhere in society despite all this recent victim talk I've been hearing.

I'm 26, so I guess it wasn't that far back, and in my public high school every single day I saw Bibles/crosses/christian related clothing.

I see churches everywhere, religious billboards, christian influence everywhere and I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Separation of church and state isn't the least bit oppressive of anyone or their views, quite the opposite actually.

OK. This is a little larger than the thread but its a question I suggest you think about before furthering your political ideology.

Who defines what oppression is? The oppressor or the oppressed?

Can you really tell me that someone's not religiously oppressed because you say they aren't?

That is the reason for local government. Seriously, go read the Freeman's Pennsylvania Packet contributions. Tell me how well that's worked out for us.

Mike

I really hope you aren't playing the "I'm a christian being oppressed by a government full of christians in majority christian country" card, or even further that I'm involved in you guys being oppressed.

 

[CryingKoala]

Most christians I've dealt with don't care about not being able to put up a manger at city hall in christmas time because they're everyone on church lawns and anywhere else citizens want to put them. There's just a small minority who complain about it, just like there's a small minority of agnostics/atheists who complain about silly things in terms of religion and government.

The purpose of various rights is not to protect the majority. They exercise their rights every time they vote. Its to protect those "silly little minorities" who may complain.

Frankly if you are going to put up the manger on public property, you should also put up other religious symbols which represent the faiths of the community as well. The point of separation of church and state is to avoid the appearance or actuality of exclusion by the government based on religious faith.

It sends the wrong message when the religious symbols adopted by a government agency only reflect one religion in a community. Inclusiveness is democratic, sectarianism is not.

 

[Texanmike]

I never see the tiniest shred of "no religious expression" anywhere in society despite all this recent victim talk I've been hearing.

I'm 26, so I guess it wasn't that far back, and in my public high school every single day I saw Bibles/crosses/christian related clothing.

I see churches everywhere, religious billboards, christian influence everywhere and I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Separation of church and state isn't the least bit oppressive of anyone or their views, quite the opposite actually.

OK. This is a little larger than the thread but its a question I suggest you think about before furthering your political ideology.

Who defines what oppression is? The oppressor or the oppressed?

Can you really tell me that someone's not religiously oppressed because you say they aren't?

That is the reason for local government. Seriously, go read the Freeman's Pennsylvania Packet contributions. Tell me how well that's worked out for us.

Mike

I really hope you aren't playing the "I'm a christian being oppressed by a government full of christians in majority christian country" card, or even further that I'm involved in you guys being oppressed.

Come on man. Read what I said and think about what I asked instead of reacting to the first four words.

Can you tell a person they are not being oppressed?

The answer is no. THAT is the reason for local government.

Mike

 

[Foxfyre]

My son played 4 seasons of high school football. He and every one of his team mates prayed all they wanted to in every game. Same with any citizen or fan there.
What you can not do is ORGANIZE a group prayer where everyone prays or watches everyone else pray to the organized by the school effort.
And I sit in amazement about what the big deal is with that.
You can not go 2 hours, watch a football game without having a group prayer? Why can't you pray to yourself? Do you have to do it inagroup to prove something?
Why does one have to read the Bible at show and tell? Why can't parents teach their kids religion at home?
I do not want organized religion at school, period. It serves NO purpose there.

The folks in your community should decide whether there will be a prayer at say a football game or whatever. Or they should decide that they don't want that. The government should not have the power to say there will or won't be prayer anywhere. If the U.S. Congress can use the people's money to have chaplain to provide a morning prayer for THEM, how can the government deny something that is appreciated and comforting in small town USA or anywhere?

Student led prayers at school assemblies were the norm when I was in school. They still should be if the student body wants that. We also recited the Pledge of Allegiance, including 'under God', and sang the National Anthem with gusto. We would have hated for those rights to be taken away, and it didn't turn a single one of us into a religious fanatic so far as I know, and I'm pretty sure it didn't persuade a single student to change his/her religion from whatever it was. The government should not presume to dictate whether students can do this or not.

The only problem is if anybody is REQUIRED to take off their hat or bow or otherwise give 'respect' to the prayer or to agree with it or endorse or embrace the religious concept from which it comes. To the best of my knowledge that has never been required.

In my opinion, the nation has become more angry, more coarse, more violent, more unpleasant the more the few, angry, prejudiced and bitter force their 'no religious expression' religion on everybody else.

I never see the tiniest shred of "no religious expression" anywhere in society despite all this recent victim talk I've been hearing.

I'm 26, so I guess it wasn't that far back, and in my public high school every single day I saw Bibles/crosses/christian related clothing.

I see churches everywhere, religious billboards, christian influence everywhere and I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Separation of church and state isn't the least bit oppressive of anyone or their views, quite the opposite actually.

It has become a problem most especially under a little known clause in the Civil Rights act, the federal government PAYS hundreds of thousands of dollars to individuals or groups who challenge presumed violations of 'civil rights' and that includes First Amendment issues. The ACLU has realized a very lucrative enterprise in going after that taxpayer money. All they need is a single plaintiff to 'defend' and that isn't difficult to comeup with when people are urged to complain, most especially when they get paid to complain.

The Bernalillo County seal was made up of a number of symbols all reflecting a part of the historical culture of the region. One among several other emblems on the seal was a small cross representing the Catholic church that was so instrumental in the settlement and culture of the area as well as the Presbyterians who had an even larger, more prominent role in the development of the area, most especially Albuquerque, the county seat. Under threat of lawsuit by the ACLU, the county removed that small cross.

In my opinion, it is wrong to deny acknowledgment of religion's role in the culture of an area when all other aspects of that culture are allowed to be expressed. I think that is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

It was pretty much the same story in the Village of Tijeras. Among emblems depicting the conquistadors/Spanish land grants, farming, hunting, logging, was also a small cross illustrating the church's influence and contribution to the community. Likewise under threat of a lawsuit that would cost too much in legal expense for the Village to defend, the cross had to be removed.

Too many courts are coming to the same conclusion; even the Supremes which as we all know don't always get it right.

Unless there is a requirement to agree or believe or respect a religious tenet in the public sector, NOTHING religious should be forbidden anywhere if the community wants it to be there.

 

[CryingKoala]

"It has become a problem most especially under a little known clause in the Civil Rights act, the federal government PAYS hundreds of thousands of dollars to individuals or groups who challenge presumed violations of 'civil rights' and that includes First Amendment issues. The ACLU has realized a very lucrative enterprise in going after that taxpayer money. All they need is a single plaintiff to 'defend' and that isn't difficult to comeup with when people are urged to complain, most especially when they get paid to complain."

Actually most of those lawsuits get killed early in the process on a technicality. The Federal Court system has been remarkably gunshy to address the issue of the Establishment Clause.

The reality is, if a community makes at least some effort at inclusiveness in its adoption of religious symbolism, the courts, even SCOTUS will give it a pass. The watchword is ecumenism, unity and inclusion of all faiths as opposed to sectarianism, showing blatant favoritism of one faith or sect.

Sectarianism has no place in government and you can't make a sensible argument that it should.

 

[Foxfyre]

"It has become a problem most especially under a little known clause in the Civil Rights act, the federal government PAYS hundreds of thousands of dollars to individuals or groups who challenge presumed violations of 'civil rights' and that includes First Amendment issues. The ACLU has realized a very lucrative enterprise in going after that taxpayer money. All they need is a single plaintiff to 'defend' and that isn't difficult to comeup with when people are urged to complain, most especially when they get paid to complain."

Actually most of those lawsuits get killed early in the process on a technicality. The Federal Court system has been remarkably gunshy to address the issue of the Establishment Clause.

The reality is, if a community makes at least some effort at inclusiveness in its adoption of religious symbolism, the courts, even SCOTUS will give it a pass. The watchword is ecumenism, unity and inclusion of all faiths as opposed to sectarianism, showing blatant favoritism of one faith or sect.

Sectarianism has no place in government and you can't make a sensible argument that it should.

Well tell that to the Bernalillo County Commission and the Tijeras Village Council who chose to remove the historical symbol rather than incur the considerable expense it would have taken to fight the ACLU's lawsuit paid for by the Federal Government. There was nothing exclusive re those seals. If the Muslims or Buddhists or Taoists or Jews had been instrumental in settling the area and part of the history and culture, it would have been appropriate to include those along with the Christian and Native American sacred emblems that were and are a part of the history and culture of the area. To require that only the Christian symbol be removed and nothing else is to me a clear violation of the intention of the Founders in protecting us from religious power and protecting all religious expression from any power of government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In my opinion, it is wrong to deny acknowledgment of religion's role in the culture of an area when all other aspects of that culture are allowed to be expressed. I think that is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

In your opinion. Do you have any fact of law in support of this opinion.

In general, then, when a given jurisdiction violates the Establishment Clause and is compelled to remove religious symbols accordingly, the removal of those symbols does not constitute a violation of the Free Exercise Clause because the placement of religious symbols on public property isn’t religious practice or a form of worship.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry pal, but you cannot codify your bible into the law of the land. If you want to pray, then go for it. No one is stopping you. I don't know why you have to be in your face about it.

As a side note, this is why Texans took Thomas Jefferson out of the history books. I don't know why Republicans despise Jefferson so much, but they do.

Actually, "pal", Christians are as allowed to codify their beliefs into law as any other group is, so long as we can get enough voters to agree with us (which beats the hell out of codifying beliefs by judicial fiat like some groups).

And we don't "despise" Thomas Jefferson. We just don't think his every private utterance has the force of federal law, or that his was the only relevant vision among the many Founding Fathers.

The man wrote a letter about his personal opinion concerning a document he neither helped write nor signed, yet the left wants to read their view of that opinion into the wording where it doesn't exist. We wouldn't accept YOUR personal opinion of the Constitution to be included in it without an Amendment, so why should we let anyone else's be?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, but "arms" does. And a pistol is a way one arms themselves.

Just as open to interpretation as is "separation of church and state"

Not hardly.

Especially since when you're interpreting the word "arms", you're at least talking about something that actually APPEARS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As long as precedent has been set, and it has, it is the law of the land. A Christian Taliban is still illegal in the US, thank God, and the rest is unimportant.

Keep your religion out of my government, just as the SCOTUS has ruled.

It amazes me how sacred leftists consider precedent . . . as long as it's a precedent they like. If they don't like it, fuck it, it's as disposable as a snot-filled Kleenex.

Can we say, "hypocrisy"?

 

[koshergrl]

The word pistol doesn't appear in the 2nd amendment either.

No, but "arms" does. And a pistol is a way one arms themselves.

Just as open to interpretation as is "separation of church and state"

How can you interpret something that isn't there?