LuvRPgrl said:president is sworn in on a Bible, congress prays, has a chaplain, as does the military,,,shall we go on??
Don't worry... the aclu and it's dark band of plundering heathens will get around to that too. It's just a matter of time.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
LuvRPgrl said:president is sworn in on a Bible, congress prays, has a chaplain, as does the military,,,shall we go on??
Max Power said:You're the one who's making references to Nazi Germany, not me.
Since you apparently missed it last time, go read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
What has "historicity" (whatever that is) got to do with it? If nativity scenes need to be banned, per your logic then trees with lights need to be banned too. And the national holiday of Christmas needs to be banned as well - certainly for all the government workers! I'll expect my mail to be delivered on December 25th! :duh3:Max Power said:There is no historicity to the birth of Jesus Christ (virgin birth, wise men, etc). I'm sorry, but there isn't. The nativity scene is religious, pure and simple.
So you are comparing a mosque to a public library which has a nativity scene set up? According to you they both have established religion. Are you saying that if I go to the library I can sign up to join the religion that's been established there?Max Power said:NO.
Simply because I don't choose to adopt a specific religion upon entering a building does NOT mean that the religion hasn't been established in said building.
Of course you liberals think nativity scenes are dangerous. Why else would you be fighting so hard to remove them? (You might want to contemplate why the Left fights so hard to remove them.)Max Power said:I never said they're dangerous.
Of course expressions of religion in the public square bother you. Why else would you be fighting so hard to remove them? (You might want to contemplate why the Left fights so hard to remove them.)Max Power said:Actually, they really don't.
So tell me. What does established mean??Max Power said:That's not true, you simply don't know what established means.
The "fuss" was originally started by the Left and its army of well-funded pinhead lawyers who with the aid of activist judges have twisted the meaning of our Constitution and started suing municipalities for displaying religious symbols in their communities which they've had the freedom of displaying ever since this country began.Max Power said:Hey, I'm not the one making the fuss, I'm just laughing at O'Reilly for making a fuss.
Max Power said:The first amendment doesn't protect people from being offended.
It does, however, prevent an establishment of religion.
Max Power said:Local governments in the U.S. cannot violate the Constitution, therefore not only is the congress limited from making laws, but every government establishment within the U.S., so yes, it does guarantee that you SHOULD not see any religious displays on public land..
Max Power said:It really depends. Sometimes, a tree is just a tree (or a tree with lights). I don't think the same can be said for a nativity scene.
Max Power said:Umm, that's not what it means. It means that religions cannot be established BY the government (federal or local).
That is the establishment clause.
You're thinking of the free exercise clause
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
So, to sum up, religion cannot be established by the government.
Max Power said:ClayTaurus already has a good post on this
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=362175&postcount=48
You don't have to be forced to adopt it for it to be an establishment of religion. I can go to a mosque without being forced to adopt Islam.
Pale Rider said:How about this for an example of change. When I was a kid, like your age, people said "Merry Christams". Now, people say "happy holidays". Why is that? Why has saying Merry Christmas disappeared from Christmas? Or better yet, why SHOULD Merry Christmas be striken from Christmas? When after all, it is "Christ's birthday" that Christmas is based on.
Now we've spent pages on this debate. Their are those here that are heathens that just simply want Christmas, Christ, and everything religous cleansed completely from view. And then there are those like me, Christians, that just want things to remain AS THEY WERE FOR CENTURIES. I for one don't feel this new change is a GOOD one. There's a sinister force behind this campaign against Christmas and Christians. An evil force. I call it the devil, and it upsets me to see the devil win.
Pale Rider said:Don't worry... the aclu and it's dark band of plundering heathens will get around to that too. It's just a matter of time.
Max Power said:Sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Max Power said:The first amendment doesn't protect people from being offended.
It does, however, prevent an establishment of religion.
Max Power said:Local governments in the U.S. cannot violate the Constitution, therefore not only is the congress limited from making laws, but every government establishment within the U.S., so yes, it does guarantee that you SHOULD not see any religious displays on public land.
Max Power said:It really depends. Sometimes, a tree is just a tree (or a tree with lights). I don't think the same can be said for a nativity scene.
Max Power said:It's only banned on public land, though. There's nobody stopping churches from putting up such a display, or people on their own lawns.
It's not an infringement on religious expression to ban it on public property, any more than it would be an infringement on your freedom of speech if I asked you to leave my house because you said something offensive.
Hagbard Celine said:For those of you hating on the ACLU, you might want to take into account that they are the only group out there fighting to maintain your civil liberties. If it weren't for the ACLU, we would be living in an even more restrictive police state than we do now.
Hagbard Celine said:For those of you hating on the ACLU, you might want to take into account that they are the only group out there fighting to maintain your civil liberties. If it weren't for the ACLU, we would be living in an even more restrictive police state than we do now.
Hagbard Celine said:For those of you hating on the ACLU, you might want to take into account that they are the only group out there fighting to maintain your civil liberties. If it weren't for the ACLU, we would be living in an even more restrictive police state than we do now.
Jimmyeatworld said:Ok, this brings up an interesting point. I'll set aside the needling for a second and let you in on something.
IF a group of people came forward and said something along the lines of wanting a gesture of fairness, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. If people came forward and wanted a law passed or even a Constitutional amendment that religious symbols were not to be displayed on public property, just as a sign of everyone being treated equally, it would be a good point. It's also something I don't necessarily disagree with. I think it would be a good gesture, particularly in areas with a wide variety of people and religions.
That's not what happens. Instead, you and people like you want to manipulate the Constitution to get your way. You want to add words, give broad definitions, or outright change what the Constitution says. THAT is what I have a problem with. I'm tired of people jumping up and claiming everything that doesn't go their way, everything they disagree with, everything that goes against their mind set is somehow a violation of their Constitutional rights, when it is nothing of the kind.
To use a variation of your own example: Saying that a nativity scene is establishing a religion is like saying that if you kick me out of your house for calling your wife a bitch, it's a violation of my freedom of speech. A nativity scene on public property might be seen as unfair to some, but it's not a violation of the Constitution. It might not seem fair for you to kick me out of your house, because maybe your wife is a bitch, but it's not a violation of the Constitution either.
Max Power said:DO you disagree with what the justice said?
Isn't that not a religion, by definition?
So long as the first amendment stands, then the government won't be representing religion.
No, it prohibits them from allowing those they represent freedom of expression on specific items on public land. It is a restrictive interpretation rather than an inclusive. Once again, it is unnecessary to equality to delete expression rather than include expression from the public sector.This doesn't in any way prohibit the government from representing religious PEOPLE.