Traditional Values Defined

[musicman]

As I said before, this notion that your freedom of religion isn't complete unless you get to decorate the government buildings is ABSURD! The government doesn't just represent the majority, it represents everyone.

Show me where, in the Constitution, it says state couthouses can't have religious displays.

Hint: The answer is "nowhere".

 

[musicman]

The 14th clearly prohibits states from engaging in discrimination.

Show me how that applies to religious displays.

 

[Max Power]

You're wrong.

If we were having this discussion regarding freedom of speech, or freedom of exercise, you wouldn't be arguing this (or would you? can the states ban free speech and free exercise of religion?).

So what's the difference between that part of the first amendment and this one?

 

[MissileMan]

Show me where, in the Constitution, it says state couthouses can't have religious displays.

Hint: The answer is "nowhere".

So what? That doesn't refute my contention that your freedom of religion isn't dependent on your ability to decorate public buildings.

 

[musicman]

If we were having this discussion regarding freedom of speech, or freedom of exercise, you wouldn't be arguing this (or would you? can the states ban free speech and free exercise of religion?).

If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. Do try to stay focused, will you?

So what's the difference between that part of the first amendment and this one?

The U.S. Constitution's entire reason for being was to implement a government whose power devolves to the people. This means that the federal government was regarded with a healthy distrust, and given only a few VERY SPECIFIC powers. It was also told, VERY SPECIFICALLY, where to butt out. That's why the establishment clause of Amendment I reads "Congress shall make no law...". That's also why Amendment X reinforces this distrust - by assigning all powers not SPECIFICALLY GRANTED to the federal government, to the states respectively, or to the people.

The purpose of the Constitution, then, was to empower the people rather than government.

 

[musicman]

So what? That doesn't refute my contention that your freedom of religion isn't dependent on your ability to decorate public buildings.

How would YOU know? Religious expression is a very subjective thing, as our founders understood. For all you know, my religion might require me to squat down in hog shit if I fail to decorate my local courthouse. The point is, if my community decides to decorate it's courthouse, and our doing so neither breaks the rules of civilized law nor violates anyone's constitutional rights, it's none of the federal government's business. And, within the given parameters, your opinion on what I require to express my religion is immaterial.

 

[Max Power]

If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. Do try to stay focused, will you?

No, you're avoiding the issue.
Why does the establishment clause not apply to the states (in your eyes), but the rest of the first amendment does.

The U.S. Constitution's entire reason for being was to implement a government whose power devolves to the people. This means that the federal government was regarded with a healthy distrust, and given only a few VERY SPECIFIC powers. It was also told, VERY SPECIFICALLY, where to butt out. That's why the establishment clause of Amendment I reads "Congress shall make no law...". That's also why Amendment X reinforces this distrust - by assigning all powers not SPECIFICALLY GRANTED to the federal government, to the states respectively, or to the people.

The purpose of the Constitution, then, was to empower the people rather than government.

Since there appears to be some confusion here, let's post the text of the amendment:
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.

The establishment clause reads "Congress shall make no law," but then, so does the ENTIRE amendment... it says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, so does that mean the states can limit free speech?

 

[musicman]

Try reading my post again, VERY SLOWLY, Max. Move your lips as you read, if it helps you.

You'll find all the answers in there, k?

 

[MissileMan]

How would YOU know? Religious expression is a very subjective thing, as our founders understood. For all you know, my religion might require me to squat down in hog shit if I fail to decorate my local courthouse. The point is, if my community decides to decorate it's courthouse, and our doing so neither breaks the rules of civilized law nor violates anyone's constitutional rights, it's none of the federal government's business. And, within the given parameters, your opinion on what I require to express my religion is immaterial.

Decorating a courthouse in only Christian religious symbols is discriminatory and prohibited by the 14th.

 

[musicman]

Decorating a courthouse in only Christian religious symbols is discriminatory and prohibited by the 14th.

Show me where.

 

[MissileMan]

Try reading my post again, VERY SLOWLY, Max. Move your lips as you read, if it helps you.

You'll find all the answers in there, k?

He's asking a valid question. You allege that the first amendment applies only to the federal government. Do you believe that the writers intended to let each state decide not only whether to establish a religion, but also write laws that would deny free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and justice?

 

[musicman]

He's asking a valid question. You allege that the first amendment applies only to the federal government. Do you believe that the writers intended to let each state decide not only whether to establish a religion, but also write laws that would deny free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and justice?

It appears that none of them did. But the short answer is, Amendment I addresses itself strictly and solely to the federal government, yes.

Can I have that answer on XIV now?

 

[MissileMan]

Show me where.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection#Federal_Material

By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

 

[Mariner]

it's so hard for Christians to accept that it's offensive--mildly offensive, but truly offensive--for religion to appear in public contexts, e.g. LuvRPgirl's example of saying "God Bless You" at a graduation ceremony.

Just do the thought experiment: Imagine you lived in a multicultural corner of America. Would you be happy if there were a Hare Krishna message in the middle of a graduation ceremony? If praise was given to Allah? If Hammurabi's code was erected on the public green?

It's very hard to see how the majority religion is being harmed by being asked to stay not in a closet, as LuvRPgirl puts it, but anywhere you wish in your life--except a public, secular sphere where we want to make sure all religions--and those with no religion--feel equally welcome.

Mariner.

 

[musicman]

No, no - I mean the part about decorating a courthouse being discriminatory. Show me that.

If the majority decides they want the courthouse decorated, and have voted to that effect, then at least the minority was heard on the matter. If I vote against a school levy, but it passes, and they go ahead and take my money, regardless of my minority status, have I been discriminated against? I'm not being allowed to participate in the activity of keeping my money, because of that stinking, tyrannical majority. Where does it end, MM? Do the majority have any rights at all?

 

[musicman]

it's so hard for Christians to accept that it's offensive--mildly offensive, but truly offensive--for religion to appear in public contexts, e.g. LuvRPgirl's example of saying "God Bless You" at a graduation ceremony.

Just do the thought experiment: Imagine you lived in a multicultural corner of America. Would you be happy if there were a Hare Krishna message in the middle of a graduation ceremony? If praise was given to Allah? If Hammurabi's code was erected on the public green?

It's very hard to see how the majority religion is being harmed by being asked to stay not in a closet, as LuvRPgirl puts it, but anywhere you wish in your life--except a public, secular sphere where we want to make sure all religions--and those with no religion--feel equally welcome.

Mariner.

I keep looking for words to that effect - "the right to feel welcome" - in the Constitution, Mariner. So far, no go.

 

[MissileMan]

No, no - I mean the part about decorating a courthouse being discriminatory. Show me that.

If the majority decides they want the courthouse decorated, and have voted to that effect, then at least the minority was heard on the matter. If I vote against a school levy, but it passes, and they go ahead and take my money, regardless of my minority status, have I been discriminated against? I'm not being allowed to participate in the activity of keeping my money, because of that stinking, tyrannical majority. Where does it end, MM? Do the majority have any rights at all?

It's discriminatory in the sense that one religion, Christianity, is being given preferential status. It's only a small step short of being sanctioned as an official state religion, which we've both agreed isn't practical.

One of the greatest things about our system is that the majority does indeed have rights, and they are identical to those in the minority, and vice versa.

 

[musicman]

It's discriminatory in the sense that one religion, Christianity, is being given preferential status. It's only a small step short of being sanctioned as an official state religion, which we've both agreed isn't practical.

Impractical, yes. Unconstitutional, no.

One of the greatest things about our system is that the majority does indeed have rights, and they are identical to those in the minority, and vice versa.

So Kerry's president, after all?

 

[liberalogic]

You are the one trying to insult other's intelligence. No one has argued that the Constitution states the government can make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

The argument comes into play when you lefties start literalizing words out of context with the intent of the statement. The statement is self-explanatory and requires no contortionist definition from YOU.

I also might add that Adam being the master of Eve predates Christianity; therefore, is irrelevant to your anti-Chrisitian rant.

I meant the Judeo christian values (which are obviously stem from both BC and AD).

And honestly, can you please explain to me how you interpret the first ammendment? Because I'm not trying to twist it, it seems obvious to me. But maybe I'm overlooking something...please give me your interpretation.

 

[manu1959]

I meant the Judeo christian values (which are obviously stem from both BC and AD).

And honestly, can you please explain to me how you interpret the first ammendment? Because I'm not trying to twist it, it seems obvious to me. But maybe I'm overlooking something...please give me your interpretation.

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.

damn that is pretty clear