Secularists...Hoist By Their Own Petard

[Sun Devil 92]

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

The ban on religious tests for holding office in the Constitution proves you wrong.

Oh and btw,

a Judge's opinion in a DISSENT, as you posted from Rehnquist...

...is the opinion of the side that LOST the case.

Those were relious tests for holding office in the federal government.

Making the Constitution the most strongly secularist document in America at the time.

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

Your supposed understanding of the constitution only comes across as some form of hero worship.

It's too bad.

the states can't overturn the holdings of the supreme court.

the federal laws are the law of the land.

Never said they could.

You join the club of hero worshippers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

Wrong...another lefty lie...read what Franklin said about God and sin...

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No it wasn't....not at the state level.

States had state sponsored religions into the early 1830's and nobody ever challenged them.

They were simply written out of the state constitutions.

They were written out of state constitutions as the Framers expected they would be if it were written INTO the Constitution.

Garbage....

If it had been written into the Constitution, states would have been obliged.

The framers essentially acknowledged that the colonies were often formed to preserve specific religious POV.

Jefferson's famous letter came about because of his exasperation with the Congregationalists in the north who were electioneering from the pulpit (as they were allowed to do) against him.

no, dearie...the political opinions of politicians who differed from each other like politicians today are irrelevant. all that is relevant is the constitution, it's caselaw and our federal laws on those subjects.

you people really should learn something before you post.

We are talking history you stupid jackass.

Not what is going on today.

You should look into having your head pulled from your ass before you post.

which is not enforceable law, you braindead ignorant wing nut

Never said it was, asshole.

We are talking historical context....end of discussion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

The ban on religious tests for holding office in the Constitution proves you wrong.

Oh and btw,

a Judge's opinion in a DISSENT, as you posted from Rehnquist...

...is the opinion of the side that LOST the case.

Those were relious tests for holding office in the federal government.

Making the Constitution the most strongly secularist document in America at the time.

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

Your supposed understanding of the constitution only comes across as some form of hero worship.

It's too bad.

That's as non sequitur as a non sequitur can get.

 

[Contumacious]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

What proof do you have that they wanted religion far away from government.

Please don't cite the first amendment.

It says "no laws respecting the establishment of religion".....guess what.

States could and did establish religions.....most of those colonies were divided along lines of religion and they were allowed to keep that.

And that is the beauty of the Constitution as a piece of diplomacy between the states! Again it demonstrates itself as a political tool, a 'subtle' agreement, a propaganda piece to unite the colonies!

Yes, most states had a " state" religion, but few were identical! And no one group of christian wanted a different brand of Christianity dictating to them.

The Constitution said that it would not submit to any religious group and hence you could practice your brand of Christianity as the way you see it without fear of the federal government!

The major part that most modern Christians miss is that in the day of our forefathers, the different christian sects were bitter rivals. They would start fights based on their different understandings of their bible. Hell, some did not have the exact copy of the bible! To unite this group of self-righteous Christians, the constitution declared not to take a side in the argument. In other words, play a neutral role in the argument.

Many people like to claim that we are a christian nation. If so, then it is a nondenominational one at best. Which means no christian group has a claim over it.

But, if this is the case. That is, our nation is founded on nondenominational christian principles, then it can not recognize any other christian group as its model!

You may think this is not a problem, until you try to find the bible that our government supposedly. Turns out, there is no bible mandated by the federal government. It can not by way of the first amendment!!

Hence, America is not a christian nation. It is a nonreligious secular nation. Nonreligious through compromise by the various different state religions that could not see eye to eye to form a simple compromise on which denomination the government should follow!

Yes, Christians did help found it. No, it is not christian because the various denominations at the time did not trust each other!

Thomas Jefferson Wall Of Separation Letter


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

So, are you saying Our government is a vehicle for Christianity?

If so, which denomination?

PS--you could search our forefathers works, letters and use their opinions as much as you like. The government is secular through compromise. Not because deists just thought secularism is idea. Because the various christian groups did not trust one being more powerful than another..

HUH

WTF

What part of a wall of separation between Church & State you do not understand? What is your vernacular , I'll translate.

Thomas Jefferson Wall Of Separation Letter


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is what I googled...

"Images for michelle obama school lunch"

That one of the pics.....

Your Google results are based on what you have previously searched for. If you're a wingnut, you'll get results from other wingnuts.

Just another subject you're ignorant about.

Get used to it: I'm never wrong.


"Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!)

Read more: Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!) - The Political Insider

More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler.

"More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler."

I was kinda hoping to get you to stick your foot in your mouth again....I posted one from the Washington Post.

if only you knew as much as you wished you did

How about we simply say I'm somewhere between you and educated, and leave it at that.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

The ban on religious tests for holding office in the Constitution proves you wrong.

Oh and btw,

a Judge's opinion in a DISSENT, as you posted from Rehnquist...

...is the opinion of the side that LOST the case.

Those were relious tests for holding office in the federal government.

Making the Constitution the most strongly secularist document in America at the time.

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

Your supposed understanding of the constitution only comes across as some form of hero worship.

It's too bad.

That's as non sequitur as a non sequitur can get.

Since you can't keep up....we'll go back.....

Historically speaking....those who came out of the time the constitution was founded understood it's limitations.

States could do what they wanted to do back then with regard to religion and the federal government never even tried to step in.

Pretty simple.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong...another lefty lie...read what Franklin said about God and sin...

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

The religion test prohibition in the Constitution does require the government to be strictly neutral between religions and whatever irreligion is supposed to be.

It's telling, take note, how many RWnuts are in this thread expressing their support for a theocratic government.

Christian of course.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Your Google results are based on what you have previously searched for. If you're a wingnut, you'll get results from other wingnuts.

Just another subject you're ignorant about.

Get used to it: I'm never wrong.


"Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!)

Read more: Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!) - The Political Insider

More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler.

"More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler."

I was kinda hoping to get you to stick your foot in your mouth again....I posted one from the Washington Post.

if only you knew as much as you wished you did

How about we simply say I'm somewhere between you and educated, and leave it at that.

Ever notice how Jillihag can only post about two sentences before her tiny brain cramps.

Never an argument....always a statement that includes the her favorite word from her 100 word vocabulary...nutter.

I read someone post she was a lawyer....which had me laughing out loud.

I didn't know the diploma mills of Central America were giving out law degrees.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong...another lefty lie...read what Franklin said about God and sin...

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

The religion test prohibition in the Constitution does require the government to be strictly neutral between religions and whatever irreligion is supposed to be.

It's telling, take note, how many RWnuts are in this thread expressing their support for a theocratic government.

Christian of course.

As long as we are clear on the first sentence.

As to the rest, I don't know.

This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.

Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The ban on religious tests for holding office in the Constitution proves you wrong.

Oh and btw,

a Judge's opinion in a DISSENT, as you posted from Rehnquist...

...is the opinion of the side that LOST the case.

Those were relious tests for holding office in the federal government.

Making the Constitution the most strongly secularist document in America at the time.

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

Your supposed understanding of the constitution only comes across as some form of hero worship.

It's too bad.

That's as non sequitur as a non sequitur can get.

Since you can't keep up....we'll go back.....

Historically speaking....those who came out of the time the constitution was founded understood it's limitations.

States could do what they wanted to do back then with regard to religion and the federal government never even tried to step in.

Pretty simple.

That is only relevant to you.

There was a big fight to put religion INTO the Constitution. Those people LOST.

BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively bans religious tests for elected officials at all levels, state on down.

 

[jillian]

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

The religion test prohibition in the Constitution does require the government to be strictly neutral between religions and whatever irreligion is supposed to be.

It's telling, take note, how many RWnuts are in this thread expressing their support for a theocratic government.

Christian of course.

As long as we are clear on the first sentence.

As to the rest, I don't know.

This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.

Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.

the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.

the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.

otherwise whose religion takes preference?

mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?

and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.

 

[NYcarbineer]

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.

 

[jillian]

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

first of all, loser.... it's jillian. there is nothing remotely haggish about me....except of course to misogynist rightwingnut pond scum.

i have answered you. you're an ignorant twit who relies on nonsense from a dissent by rhenquist....

 

[initforme]

Well if we are a nation based on judeo christian values we are doing a poor job. Jesus was all about taking care of the less fortunate, not protecting the wealthy. Yet here we are...on the throws of a plutocracy.

 

[jillian]

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.

yep...she's what ignorant people think smart is supposed to sound like.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Those were relious tests for holding office in the federal government.

Making the Constitution the most strongly secularist document in America at the time.

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

Your supposed understanding of the constitution only comes across as some form of hero worship.

It's too bad.

That's as non sequitur as a non sequitur can get.

Since you can't keep up....we'll go back.....

Historically speaking....those who came out of the time the constitution was founded understood it's limitations.

States could do what they wanted to do back then with regard to religion and the federal government never even tried to step in.

Pretty simple.

That is only relevant to you.

There was a big fight to put religion INTO the Constitution. Those people LOST.

BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively bans religious tests for elected officials at all levels, state on down.

Stop deflecting.....

I really don't care about any fight to put it into the constitution....I don't recall ever reading that......

Thank heavens it never made it.

And when did the fourteenth ban religous tests ?

Please show me.....

If you mean the SCOTUS used the 14th to do so...I agree.

That was likely sometime in the 20th century...about 150 years post ratification of the Constitution.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

The religion test prohibition in the Constitution does require the government to be strictly neutral between religions and whatever irreligion is supposed to be.

It's telling, take note, how many RWnuts are in this thread expressing their support for a theocratic government.

Christian of course.

As long as we are clear on the first sentence.

As to the rest, I don't know.

This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.

Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.

the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.

the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.

otherwise whose religion takes preference?

mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?

and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.

It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.