Traditional Values Defined

[LuvRPgrl]

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?

If they wanted to, I suppose they could. But they couldnt restrict speech on any federal elections.

Then again, on the other hand, I think the first amend. is the only one that specifically refers to congress. All the others dont, I think, so that could mean the others apply across the board, state and fed level.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Umm, no it's not.
If I own a nightclub, and you wish to work there, but refuse to work on Saturday because it's the Sabbath, I can fire you.
Similarly, the government can fire you if you do not comply with their policies. Don't like it? WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE.
It's not infringing on your right to religious expression to deny you a government job.


That's just ridiculous.

thats not religous expression, thats religous action.

 

[MissileMan]

Impractical, yes. Unconstitutional, no.

But discriminatory, yes, and therefore unconstitutional.

So Kerry's president, after all?

I'm talking equal rights, equal protection,equal consideration whether in the majority or minority, not election results. Being in the majority doesn't give you special rights...being in the minority shouldn't either.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

But discriminatory, yes, and therefore unconstitutional.





I'm talking equal rights, equal protection,equal consideration whether in the majority or minority, not election results. Being in the majority doesn't give you special rights...being in the minority shouldn't either.

It isnt even close to being a step away from establishing a state religion.

Thats just a lame excuse.

The way govt spends money is ALWAYS discriminatory. They way they decorate buildings, and the information they put out is ALWAYS DISCRIMINATORY. Why would you only attack the ones geared towards Christianity? BECAUSE YOU HAVE A BIAS.

The laws that cannot be discriminatory, are laws that punish.

Otherwise you have to get rid of all govt funded programs except the very, very absolutely necessary functions, such as defense.

Now, do you think the govt helping fund colleges is discriminatory? I do, all non college material kids are being discriminated against
How about prescription drugs?
How about welfare?
How about the bridge to nowhere?
How about public education (disproportiante spent on richer neighborhoods)

The list will go on forever.

 

[MissileMan]

The laws that cannot be discriminatory, are laws that punish.

When you put obviously bullshit statements like this in a reply, how can you expect anyone to take anything you write seriously?

 

[liberalogic]

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

so "no law respecting the establishment of religion" means no laws will be based on religion.

 

[Said1]

so "no law respecting the establishment of religion" means no laws will be based on religion.

No. No laws establishing "a" religion. Has nothing to do with other "laws" not pertaining to religion and where they stem from.

 

[Gunny]

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. "

Have agree with Manu ..... it's pretty self-explanatory to me.

In regard to religion .... "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:..." requires nothing more than reading what it says without somehow making out of that, that religious items on public property are "establishing a religion."

Now it's Judeo-Christian value? This means you can mix and match the Old and New Testaments as it suits your argument, right?

 

[liberalogic]

"Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:..." is incorrect.


The amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", not "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion". In this context the word "establishment" refers to religion as an institution, it's not using establishment as a verb. I don't think that our founding fathers were especially worried about congress trying to use laws to establish its own religions, why congress would ever want to do such a thing is beyond me.

 

[Annie]

"Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:..." is incorrect.


The amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", not "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion". In this context the word "establishment" refers to religion as an institution, it's not using establishment as a verb. I don't think that our founding fathers were especially worried about congress trying to use laws to establish its own religions, why congress would ever want to do such a thing is beyond me.

Church of England. Roman Catholic Church. They had lots of reasons to fear such a thing. They purposefully prohibited Congress from doing such a thing.

 

[liberalogic]

the church of england had no congressional representatives, so still an unjustified fear, but thats beyond the point. Regardless, "an stablishment of religion" refers to religion as an institution, religion as an ESTABLISHMENT, not the act of establishing a new religion.

 

[Annie]

the church of england had no congressional representatives, so still an unjustified fear, but thats beyond the point. Regardless, "an stablishment of religion" refers to religion as an institution, religion as an ESTABLISHMENT, not the act of establishing a new religion.

Nope, it was to prohibit Congress from accepting a 'religion' for the country, through law.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...ablishment+of+religion&hl=en&client=firefox-a

 

[liberalogic]

wrong. It was to prohibit the institution of religion from having any bearing on the creation of law.

 

[Said1]

wrong. It was to prohibit the institution of religion from having any bearing on the creation of law.

No. Again. It's "a" religious institution.

 

[Annie]

wrong. It was to prohibit the institution of religion from having any bearing on the creation of law.

Try reading some original documents. Try Adams or Madison's papers or you could just start with the first amendment and a dictionary. They really were not being obtuse.

 

[Said1]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#3

 

[liberalogic]

so you believe that the first amendment is not discussing the inability of religious institutions to influence public policy, but rather the inability of public policy makers to use public policy to establish their own religious institutions? just to clarify.

 

[Said1]

so you believe that the first amendment is not discussing the inability of religious institutions to influence public policy, but rather the inability of public policy makers to use public policy to establish their own religious institutions? just to clarify.

Both. That's why there is a seperation.

 

[Annie]

Both. That's why there is a seperation.

No, the separation discussed by the Founders was regarding the establishment.

It took Scotus until 1952 to deal with it, using 'surprise' the 14th amendment, the reconstruction amendment and 'due process' which has been the basis of judicial activism.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254

 

[Gunny]

"Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:..." is incorrect.


The amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", not "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion". In this context the word "establishment" refers to religion as an institution, it's not using establishment as a verb. I don't think that our founding fathers were especially worried about congress trying to use laws to establish its own religions, why congress would ever want to do such a thing is beyond me.

If you try looking again, since you missed it the first time, the cut-n-paste I did of the First Amendment is correct. In repeating the first line, I left out a couple of words in haste, not to some nefarious purpose. Either way, it says the same thing, so I don't see where making an issue of it is relevant at all.

I think your problem is instead of reading what's there, you are allegedly "thinking" what the founding fathers meant, the crux of the leftwing, pseudo-intellectual argument.

Please present for us ignorant folk just exactly which law Congress has passed "respecting an establishment of religion."