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.
MissileMan said:It wasn't just churches on foreign soil that made it abundantly clear that government and religion should remain separate. There was plenty of persecution occurring in the pre-constitutional colonies.
I find it difficult to believe that you summarily dismiss a post-writing declaration of intent by one of the authors of the document. If his can't be considered an expert opinion on the intent, noone's can.
I do not dismiss it. I keep it in the context of what it is. It is NOT the law. The First Amendment is the law.
If Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine, et al truly intended to completely divorce religion and government, they most certainly had every opportunity to word the First Amendment accordingly.
They did not. The law says what it says.
I agree with you on this. But unless these government buildings are also going to exhibit the religious symbols of the minorities, and I'm only talking about new exhibits not ones that have been in place for decades, then they are discriminatory and unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
GunnyL said:If a decorative item is conservative and in good taste, and suitable to the environment in which it placed, I don't have a problem with other religions being exhibited.
Yes, based on your logic the argument can be made. If your reason for highlighting: That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, is meant to infer that all possible 'religious renditions' must be wiped from public venue, based on any one person being 'compelled' into 'supporting' meaning viewing, we have to assume that is his right, due to tax support-proving his acceptance of the government. Thus his 'beliefs' or not, as the case may be, results in the government being forced to remove all such.MissileMan said:If indeed the military were a religious organization, then taxes spent on defense would be unconstitutional. One of the expressed purposes of the government as outlined in the COTUS is to provide for defense. I don't think you can reasonably argue that the founders intended for people to be able to opt of of taxes if they disagreed on what the money was being spent on.
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Kathianne said:Now on the other hand, as I stated previously, I do believe you are reading what you want to into this piece by Jefferson. I think what you didn't highlight:
speaks directly to the prohibition of establishment, based on the abuses of both the RC and Church of England in the recent past, from Jefferson's position in time.
MissileMan said:How can you place restrictions on people's religious symbols? They are what they are.
rtwngAvngr said:"That the State-US-cannot establish a state religion. Nothing though should prohibit the free excercise of one's religion." -- Kathianne.
MissileMan said:How can you place restrictions on people's religious symbols? They are what they are.
GunnyL said:I am not placing restrictions on them, and I can see where you think you're going. You need to save the literalist junk for someone else. And you can play dumb with them too.
There is such a thing as appropriate, and you know it as well as I. Some nimrod practicing Santaria wanting to place a dead goat in a courtroom is inappropriate.
Kathianne said:Disagree, we have simple examples such as removing a cross from flags across the country-counties, cities, etc. At the same time, obvious symbols from other religions or belief systems are allowed to remain.
MissileMan said:I've expressed my disapproval of such actions on several occasions.
What I was trying to point out was that even if someone's religious symbol is something that most people would find offensive, it is what it is, THEIR religious symbol and as worthy of inclusion as any other.
Kathianne said:I would have no public money spent on anything that can be construed as a religious article. However, I do not see any harm in privately erected and maintained displays at holidays, etc. Of course that option should be opened to all-as are public gatherings such as the KKK marching in Skokie. (We won't even go to where the most harm would be done in these cases.)
IF some nimrod decided that a picture of the Last Supper should be hung in a courthouse or something, I think that would be a very valid case to be argued using the first amendment. I think this is the basis of allowing the personal choice of 'swearing or affirming' which has been available since the beginning of our country. Common sense and respect for others, including historically, has their place in civilized society.
Kathianne said:I would have no public money spent on anything that can be construed as a religious article. However, I do not see any harm in privately erected and maintained displays at holidays, etc. Of course that option should be opened to all-as are public gatherings such as the KKK marching in Skokie. (We won't even go to where the most harm would be done in these cases.)
IF some nimrod decided that a picture of the Last Supper should be hung in a courthouse or something, I think that would be a very valid case to be argued using the first amendment. I think this is the basis of allowing the personal choice of 'swearing or affirming' which has been available since the beginning of our country. Common sense and respect for others, including historically, has their place in civilized society.
That is what I was speaking of. As for the holidays, I think that is still construed by the employers. Of course, postal employees get them off, but lord knows they need it.rtwngAvngr said:OR what if a church offers to put a nativity on the courthouse lawn, free of charge?No gov money is being spent. Is this unconstitutional? WHo is offended by a nativity scene? Show me someone offended by a nativity scene and I'll show you an insane person, or someone with an agenda, or both.
Kathianne said:That is what I was speaking of. As for the holidays, I think that is still construed by the employers. Of course, postal employees get them off, but lord knows they need it.
dilloduck said:http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
I thought I would throw this in the mix since maybe the defintions of "values" and "traditional" cause communication problems.
"Traditional" to me is something that people have done the same way for a long time.
"Values" is a bit more complicated. Is it rules we use to determine right from wrong or is it behavior towards things that are important to us as a society?
It almost seems to me as if "traditional values" is something that we could simply reflect on and see what actually has been done and what hasn't.
I'm not sure the whys, hows or history of traditional values are important when defining them. Can't we just look at what we have done regarding the things that are important or habitual to us as a society?
rtwngAvngr said:No. No. dillo. THis is too rational. The hatred of traditional values is to prevent analysis of them on a rational level. Communists are behind the new hatred of traditional values, specifically, traditional christian values, because, in the most simple analysis, communist totalitarians rely on inflaming envy to legitimize stealing. I don't think jesus would approve.
dilloduck said:ya--I goof up a lot on the "rational" thing. I wouldnt mind hearing some of Americas' great non-christian values though. Or have Christians completely exorcised all of Americas other great traditional values?
