God And Politics, How far do we take Seperation of Church and State?

[fubar]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Where exactly does this imply that " Thou shall not refer to god in a government building" ? I don't see it. I do see the directive NOT to interfere with the free exercise of religion , perhaps even in a courthouse or a park.

If a mayor or commitee wants to put a baby Jesus up at Christmas time , the 'congress shall make no law ....prohibiting the free exercise".

Of course i know that i am not a civil rights lawyer, just an ignorant redneck who can read.

 

[dilloduck]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Where exactly does this imply that " Thou shall not refer to god in a government building" ? I don't see it. I do see the directive NOT to interfere with the free exercise of religion , perhaps even in a courthouse or a park.

If a mayor or commitee wants to put a baby Jesus up at Christmas time , the 'congress shall make no law ....prohibiting the free exercise".

Of course i know that i am not a civil rights lawyer, just an ignorant redneck who can read.

The Supreme Court thinks they are much wiser than us literate rednecks :finger:

 

[Bonnie]

The Supreme Court thinks they are much wiser than us literate rednecks :finger:

See Dillo what it comes down to for Libs is free exercise of religion as long as it's kept hidden in the basement, and they don't have to be subjected to the horrors of watching people actually express a love or devotion to a higher power than the human intellect, makes them really nervous

 

[dilloduck]

See Dillo what it comes down to for Libs is free exercise of religion as long as it's kept hidden in the basement, and they don't have to be subjected to the horrors of watching people actually express a love or devotion to a higher power than the human intellect, makes them really nervous

Perhaps if they just took the next step and admit they think they are gods they could pretend that they are the recipients of the worship. :cof:

 

[Bonnie]

Perhaps if they just took the next step and admit they think they are gods they could pretend that they are the recipients of the worship. :cof:

Hmm isn't that what they are already doing?

 

[dilloduck]

Hmm isn't that what they are already doing?

not nearly overtly enough. I want some first rate miracles dammit !

 

[Bonnie]

not nearly overtly enough. I want some first rate miracles dammit !

Three miracles and then we make toast, or is that wine? :

 

[musicman]

Universal health care without raising taxes (except, of course, on the RICH), and 40,000 new soldiers without a draft - those would qualify as pretty nifty miracles. Of course, our liberal deities have already got it figured out. They'll just change the definitions of "rich" and "draft"!

 

[Bonnie]

Universal health care without raising taxes (except, of course, on the RICH), and 40,000 new soldiers without a draft - those would qualify as pretty nifty miracles. Of course, our liberal deities have already got it figured out. They'll just change the definitions of "rich" and "draft"!

Yes and the operative word Rich has now been re-defined by Liberals as anyone not working at Burger King.

 

[no1tovote4]

Yes and the operative word Rich has now been re-defined by Liberals as anyone not working at Burger King.

No, people working at Burger King are obviously rich, they are not homeless enough to not be taxed by the Left.

 

[fubar]

Supreme court hears aclu

Well, they must be listening to me. Now if they'll ust do what I want them to do, I'll stop being mean to them.

 

[acludem]

The court is actually hearing appeals of two cases on the same issue. One ruling allowed the Ten Commandments, the other did not.

I hope the SCOTUS will reaffirm and strengthen it's earlier decision. The Ten Commandments are inherently religious dogma and have should not be posted in government buildings except as part of historical displays.

acludem

 

[YoungChristian]

Do liberals ever read the Constitution that they vow to uphold? The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore, there should be no state-sponsored religion, but to take prayer out of schools or the Ten Commandments out of the courthouse would be an infringement upon my "free exercise thereof."

 

[Bonnie]

Do liberals ever read the Constitution that they vow to uphold? The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore, there should be no state-sponsored religion, but to take prayer out of schools or the Ten Commandments out of the courthouse would be an infringement upon my "free exercise thereof."

You see most Liberals don't care about our "free exercise thereof: becasue it's too inconvenient for them.

 

[acludem]

You may follow the Ten Commandments, or carry them in your pocket, or post them in front of YOUR house, that's all part and parcel of your right to free exercise of your religion. However, you displaying the Ten Commandments in buildings that were paid for by taxpayers of religions that DO NOT subscribe to your particular version of the Ten Commandments or any commandments at all violates everyone else's right to free exercise of religion. There is a very simple line. Your rights end where they infringe on the rights of another. For example. your right to free expression ends when it causes physical injury or threatens the safety of others. Your right to free speech ends when you incite violence. Your right to free exercise of religion ends when it interferes with someone else's right to freely exercise their religion. This isn't hard folks. It's only the religious (yes, largely Protestant Christian, but not entirely) right that seeks to force their particular religious dogma on the rest of us in this country. In other parts of the world it might be Muslims, Hindus, Catholics or Buddhists.

acludem

acludem

 

[Bonnie]

You may follow the Ten Commandments, or carry them in your pocket, or post them in front of YOUR house, that's all part and parcel of your right to free exercise of your religion. However, you displaying the Ten Commandments in buildings that were paid for by taxpayers of religions that DO NOT subscribe to your particular version of the Ten Commandments or any commandments at all violates everyone else's right to free exercise of religion. There is a very simple line. Your rights end where they infringe on the rights of another. For example. your right to free expression ends when it causes physical injury or threatens the safety of others. Your right to free speech ends when you incite violence. Your right to free exercise of religion ends when it interferes with someone else's right to freely exercise their religion. This isn't hard folks. It's only the religious (yes, largely Protestant Christian, but not entirely) right that seeks to force their particular religious dogma on the rest of us in this country. In other parts of the world it might be Muslims, Hindus, Catholics or Buddhists.

acludem

acludem

Okay great, but how about a teacher who gets fired for wearing a crucifix necklace to school.........?

And how about the ridciulous lawsuits being filed by people who find other neighbors nativity scenes offensive, and don't want to have to look at it during the Christmas season?

 

[acludem]

The ACLU has defended the rights of both students and teachers to wear crucifixes. The rule applies - as long as the teacher does not prosthelyze, no problem. I have neighbors that put up nativity scenes, no problem unless they are a jillion watts bright or play music at concert level decibels.

acludem

 

[007]

Okay great, but how about a teacher who gets fired for wearing a crucifix necklace to school.........?

And how about the ridciulous lawsuits being filed by people who find other neighbors nativity scenes offensive, and don't want to have to look at it during the Christmas season?

Oh now Bonnie... you had to go and ask him the hard questions. Now he'll have to go get his liberal response handbook and look up an answer. But I already know it'll be completely devoid of any culpability on the aclu's part, pertaining to their war on Christianity. They don't care if Muslim's BROADCAST over a LOAD SPEAKER, their call to pray five times a day. But NO DAMN WAY are they going to let you or anyone else put a nativity scene that you can completely IGNORE if you so choose. It's a war the aclu is waging full bore against Christianity. Mainly because Christianity STANDS IN THE WAY of their Godless, immoral agenda of homosexuality, lesbianism, the murder of the unborn, and God only knows what other vile and immoral things to come, *IF*, their war on Christianity were to ever succeed. The aclu is the devil himself, doing his dirty work at the hands of ignorant, lost, and headed for hell people.

And to those who think that burning the American flag is somehow "art", or "freedom of speech", I can only say this, it hadn't better be in front of this veteran. I can GUARANTEE you, an unpleasant end to it.

 

[wade]

That being said, I think it's important for the president to have good morals. Being a Christian makes it likely for him to have those. So, thumbs up to that.

Hmmm... From what I've seen, Christians are no more moral than non-Christains. They just think they are. They cheat, steal, lie, and murder at about the same levels as most other faiths and those of no specific faith. They cheat on their girlfrends/boyfriends/spouses at least as often, perhaps more so. I have seen absolutely nothing to show that Christians are any more moral than anyone else.

 

[wade]

Do liberals ever read the Constitution that they vow to uphold? The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore, there should be no state-sponsored religion, but to take prayer out of schools or the Ten Commandments out of the courthouse would be an infringement upon my "free exercise thereof."

The problem is that if they put these things in the school and courthouses, they need to represent all religions equally.

These things do not belong in our schools or courthouses, unless every faith, and the absense of faith, are also going to be acknowleged. Otherwise, those not of the represented faith (in your example Christianity) are effectively being told they are less welcome and less likely to get a fair shake than if they are of the represented faith.