Next time some idiot says "Our forefathers didn't base this country on God".....

[musicman]

There is no constitutional restriction on a local community from "endorsing" religious expression with its governmental institutions. The U.S. Constitution only prohibits the U.S. Congress from writing law "establish[ing]" a national religion or denomination. The restriction does not extend beyond the U.S. Congress. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court has trampled upon the 1st Amendment and denied the right of religious expression.

Precisely. Personal matters such as religion were constitutionally designed to be decided at the community level; it's the whole thrust of limited, devolving government. The constitution is as brilliantly tyrant-proof as our founders could make it; ergo, those in the judiciary (and their wire-pullers) who attempt to thwart it via cynical, preposterous interpretations are TYRANTS. They will succeed to the degree that America remains asleep.

 

[acludem]

You are completely wrong again. The Supreme Court ruled a long, long time ago that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. If it didn't, couldn't states vote to ban gun ownership all together?

acludem

 

[musicman]

You are completely wrong again.

"Again" presumes that I was wrong elsewhere in this thread. I certainly don't think YOU'VE proven me so.

The Supreme Court ruled a long, long time ago that the Bill of Rights applies to the states.

Ah - now, at long last, we arrive at the crux of the matter: the bastardization of the Constitution which your ilk have achieved through their twisted, agenda-driven INTERPRETATION of the XIVth Amendment. How did we make the magical leap from "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" to "No government, at any level, shall as much as mention God's name in public"? That's wrong, and you KNOW it's wrong. It is as contrary to the founders' design for the devolution of power away from centralized government as is a national policy on abortion. These crimes against freedom suit only the agenda of elitist tyrants. The U.S. Constitution has been frustrating tyrants for 229 years now. With God's help, maybe the American people will come to appreciate the beauty of this document, and realize the true meaning of freedom. Maybe, one day, we'll be wise enough to consign the ACLU to the ash-heap of history, where it belongs.

 

[deaddude]

"No government, at any level, shall as much as mention God's name in public"?

Not exactly true. With the whole "In God We Trust" on almost every bit of our currency. Or the "Under God" bit in the pledge (which the liberal courts that you despise so much ruled to keep). Or Bush saying that God told him to strike Al Queada and Saddam. Wow man you guys are realy being oppressed.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Not exactly true. With the whole "In God We Trust" on almost every bit of our currency. Or the "Under God" bit in the pledge (which the liberal courts that you despise so much ruled to keep). Or Bush saying that God told him to strike Al Queada and Saddam. Wow man you guys are realy being oppressed.

That's pretty impressive. I've never seen a quote taken out of context that quickly. Congratulations.

 

[deaddude]

I was just pointing out that musicmans "No government on any level will make reference to God in public." Was wrong, they do it all the time.

 

[musicman]

Not exactly true. With the whole "In God We Trust" on almost every bit of our currency. Or the "Under God" bit in the pledge (which the liberal courts that you despise so much ruled to keep). Or Bush saying that God told him to strike Al Queada and Saddam. Wow man you guys are realy being oppressed.

Each of the examples you mentioned - and more - are in the crosshairs of a relentless assault by those who would obliterate every vestige of Christianity - and ONLY Christianity - from the public arena. The ACLU stands at the vanguard of this hate-filled agenda. A minority of one can have a religious display removed from city property, and the wishes of the community be damned. There is absolutely no constitutional basis for this insanity. Tell me I'm wrong.

Thus, I stand by my statement: "No government, at any level, shall as much as mention God's name in public" is a battle cry, a mission statement, and a promise made in deadly earnest. You're a smart guy, deaddude; I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. You know what's going on, all right - you just assume all the CHRISTIANS are dozing.

 

[deaddude]

I do understand that many of my examples have come under fire. I understand that there are people who take the separation of church and state too far. All of my examples are contemporary, and are easily defensible and all attempts to remove them have to date been dismissed by the courts.

However I also understand that it is political suicide to admit to not being Christian. I understand that Christian groups in Florida have made and passed laws specifically to prevent Santerians from practicing their religion (these laws were overturned in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah). I also understand that it would be easier to find 100 quotes from the Bible set in stone in a federal or state government building, than to find three quotes from the Qua ran, Bagivad Gita, Mahibbaratta, or Rama Yana receiving the same.

The Bible has taken some substantial flak recently, but musicman, you have to admit that Christianity is still at the top of the Religious food chain in the United States.

 

[deaddude]

Oh and as to the Christians dozing thing. I dont think that it is so much that they are dozing, it is just that they have been the undisputed "correct" religion in the US for so long that they are unused to being disagreed with here. It has taken awhile for the reaction to occur.

 

[musicman]

Oh and as to the Christians dozing thing. I dont think that it is so much that they are dozing, it is just that they have been the undisputed "correct" religion in the US for so long that they are unused to being disagreed with here.

Being disagreed with is one thing; the unrelenting, concerted hostility engendered by Christianity can only be interpreted as an attack. You say "Christianity is at the top of the political food chain" like it's a bad thing. It's the majority religion, after all. This nation was founded by Christians, and - in keeping with Christian principles - religious freedom is the law of the land. Much good it's done Christians! The language which guarantees those freedoms is being twisted beyond recognition in a well-organized, well-funded effort to banish Christianity from the public arena, in favor of secular humanism. The very heart of the U.S. Constitution - its determination to severely limit centralized government in deference to the rights of the individual - is being ripped out by tyrants.

Religion is none of the federal government's business. Matters of behavior such as this devolve - by constitutional decree - to the states, the community, and - ultimately - to the individual. It's not just Christians who are under attack, deaddude - it's the American way of life.

 

[Bonnie]

Being disagreed with is one thing; the unrelenting, concerted hostility engendered by Christianity can only be interpreted as an attack. You say "Christianity is at the top of the political food chain" like it's a bad thing. It's the majority religion, after all. This nation was founded by Christians, and - in keeping with Christian principles - religious freedom is the law of the land. Much good it's done Christians! The language which guarantees those freedoms is being twisted beyond recognition in a well-organized, well-funded effort to banish Christianity from the public arena, in favor of secular humanism. The very heart of the U.S. Constitution - its determination to severely limit centralized government in deference to the rights of the individual - is being ripped out by tyrants.

Religion is none of the federal government's business. Matters of behavior such as this devolve - by constitutional decree - to the states, the community, and - ultimately - to the individual. It's not just Christians who are under attack, deaddude - it's the American way of life.

Very well said!!!!!!!!!

 

[deaddude]

Being disagreed with is one thing; the unrelenting, concerted hostility engendered by Christianity can only be interpreted as an attack. You say "Christianity is at the top of the political food chain" like it's a bad thing. It's the majority religion, after all. This nation was founded by Christians, and - in keeping with Christian principles - religious freedom is the law of the land. Much good it's done Christians! The language which guarantees those freedoms is being twisted beyond recognition in a well-organized, well-funded effort to banish Christianity from the public arena, in favor of secular humanism. The very heart of the U.S. Constitution - its determination to severely limit centralized government in deference to the rights of the individual - is being ripped out by tyrants.

Religion is none of the federal government's business. Matters of behavior such as this devolve - by constitutional decree - to the states, the community, and - ultimately - to the individual. It's not just Christians who are under attack, deaddude - it's the American way of life.

Yes you are coming under attack. What I meant is that it is hard for me to see christianity as being an oppressed religion when it is the majority religion and when it is on the top of the food chain.

Yes, the states have authority over religion in so far as they comply with the first amendment. Which has come (through the 14th amendment) to apply to the states. So as long as the states do not endorse or attack any particular religious instituition, they have the authority and not the federal government.

 

[deaddude]

Also, I know many of you do not like the fact that the 14th amendment is being used to apply the bill of rights to the states, but I do think that it would be hard to argue that having the first amendment in every state is some kind of great evil.

 

[archangel]

To post of a copy of the Ten Commandments, one of which reads "I am the Lord Thy God, you shall have no other Gods before me" is a clear government establishment of Christianity as the only accepted religion in the court.

As for my prior statement, I'm referring to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others like them who have openly bashed other religions, and have made statements favoring theocracy.

I believe in an America where every person has the right to make his or her own choice about what religion to practice if any and to practice that religion so long as it does not require commission of a crime to do so (i.e. polygamy, etc) without government interference. I firmly believe that is what our founders had in mind when they crafted our Constitution and then added the first amendment to clarify this.


I for one would prefer Christianity in our country vs Islam...better be careful of what you ask for you may just get it! The way Liberals and their "God" the "ACLU" support Islam over Christianity is amazing to me..If Islam wins over Christianity well all you secuarlist will have hell to pay...way more than Christians!

 

[musicman]

Also, I know many of you do not like the fact that the 14th amendment is being used to apply the bill of rights to the states, but I do think that it would be hard to argue that having the first amendment in every state is some kind of great evil.

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... (keyword - CONGRESS)

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

How, then, shall the XIVth Amendment apply - in the manner which necessitates such interpretational gymnastics as "U.S. Congress = government at any conceivable level", or, in the clear, unambiguous language of the document itself (any power not specifically granted to the central government devolves to the people)?

 

[deaddude]

Amendment 14

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.


The 14th amendment directly applies to the states. "Privileges and immunities" is very vague and can easily (ie without requiring gymnastics) be interpreted as refering to the rights granted by the first and other amendments.

 

[Max Power]

I for one would prefer Christianity in our country vs Islam...better be careful of what you ask for you may just get it! The way Liberals and their "God" the "ACLU" support Islam over Christianity is amazing to me..If Islam wins over Christianity well all you secuarlist will have hell to pay...way more than Christians!

I don't think you know what liberalism is.

 

[deaddude]

I for one would prefer Christianity in our country vs Islam...better be careful of what you ask for you may just get it! The way Liberals and their "God" the "ACLU" support Islam over Christianity is amazing to me..If Islam wins over Christianity well all you secuarlist will have hell to pay...way more than Christians! [/QUOTE]

I would perfer hinduism over either of the two you mention. :huh:

 

[musicman]

Amendment 14

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...

And one of said privileges and immunities is the absence of federal interference in the matter of religion.

The 14th amendment directly applies to the states. "Privileges and immunities" is very vague and can easily (ie without requiring gymnastics) be interpreted as refering to the rights granted by the first and other amendments.

There's nothing vague about the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law" means "Congress shall make no law". Nothing, anywhere else in the document, countermands, changes, or expands the meaning of "Congress shall make no law" into anything but "religion is none of the federal government's business".

There's nothing vague about the Tenth Amendment either. Any power not specifically delegated to the federal government AUTOMATICALLY devolves to the states, the community, and - ultimately - to the individual. It is the whole purpose of self-government.

If vagueness exists anywhere, it is with modern-day judicial INTERPRETATION of the Fourteenth. This represents a desperate attempt by tyrants to impose powerful central government upon a self-governing people; to goof up a goof-proof document, if you will. This is what the present-day judicial war is about: will tomorrow's judges continue to write law and create new rights through the arrogance born of their new-found "interprative powers", or will they protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

 

[Nuc]

Why didn't you post this in the religion forum?