Who here actually thinks that separation of church & state is a bad thing?

[xotoxi]

Who here actually thinks that separation of church & state is a bad thing?

I have less of a problem with separation of church and state as I do with separation of white and yolk.

 

[Charles_Main]

I think taking the Idea to such an extreme that a cross or the Star of David or a crescent moon. Can not be displayed on any state or Federal Land. Is an over the top, and out of control, interpretation of the original Intent.

How would you feel if the cross, or the star of david, or the crescent moon adorning federal land was paid for and maintained with taxpayer money?

Ah but the People who fight against such things do not discriminate between things that are paid for by the Feds, and a cross some people put up to memorialize dead police officers at their own Expense now do they.

Note: to this day a copy of the Ten Commandments still hangs in the Supreme court. Now if that plaque somehow violates the constitution why has it been there this whole time. I will tell you why. Because it took this long for courts to Twist the steps the constitution took to Insure we all could be free to worship as we please and not have a government that tells us what we have to worship. Into the idea that mere symbols of Any religion on any piece of State land was establishing a state religion or somehow restricting anyone's right to worship as they please.

The key words the extreme secularists ignore in both the clauses in the Constitution they sight to justify their Extreme Idea are the words "congress shall make no law". The mere act of allowing a religious symbol on state land does not constitute the congress making a law that restricts free worship or establishes a religion.

Plain and simple.

 

[manifold]

I think taking the Idea to such an extreme that a cross or the Star of David or a crescent moon. Can not be displayed on any state or Federal Land. Is an over the top, and out of control, interpretation of the original Intent.

How would you feel if the cross, or the star of david, or the crescent moon adorning federal land was paid for and maintained with taxpayer money?

Ah but the People who fight against such things do not discriminate between things that are paid for by the Feds, and a cross some people put up to memorialize dead police officers at their own Expense now do they.

Note: to this day a copy of the Ten Commandments still hangs in the Supreme court. Now if that plaque somehow violates the constitution why has it been there this whole time. I will tell you why. Because it took this long for courts to Twist the steps the constitution took to Insure we all could be free to worship as we please and not have a government that tells us what we have to worship. Into the idea that mere symbols of Any religion on any piece of State land was establishing a state religion or somehow restricting anyone's right to worship as they please.

The key words the extreme secularists ignore in both the clauses in the Constitution they sight to justify their Extreme Idea are the words "congress shall make no law". The mere act of allowing a religious symbol on state land does not constitute the congress making a law that restricts free worship or establishes a religion.

Plain and simple.

How would you feel if the cross, or the star of david, or the crescent moon adorning federal land was paid for and maintained with taxpayer money?

 

[Charles_Main]

Stop trying to force your religious views upon others...problem solved.

When will you people learn that forcing an extreme secular interpretation of the constitution on people is the same as forcing your religious views on people.

My guess is never because you are all unabashed Hippocrates.

Extreme secular?? ??

The Constitution is secular, therefore it cannot be intrpretted too secularly.

Are you always this transparently partisan?

Wrong. This is all the Constitution says on the Subject.

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

Interpreting that to mean you can't allow a few Religious symbols on state land is indeed taking Secularism to the Extreme.

Look no further than the fact that until less than 3 Decades ago there were Religious symbols found all over state and Federal land in this country and only since then have forces began fighting to remove them for evidence that We are now taking Secularism to a further extreme than past generations did.

If you were not so "transparently partisan" you would get that. I am an agnostic. I could care less about religion. I simply understand the intent of the constitution as it was meant, and not as liberals such as your self want to interpret it.

 

[manifold]

When will you people learn that forcing an extreme secular interpretation of the constitution on people is the same as forcing your religious views on people.

My guess is never because you are all unabashed Hippocrates.

Extreme secular?? ??

The Constitution is secular, therefore it cannot be intrpretted too secularly.

Are you always this transparently partisan?

Wrong. This is all the Constitution says on the Subject.

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

Interpreting that to mean you can't allow a few Religious symbols on state land is indeed taking Secularism to the Extreme.

Look no further than the fact that until less than 3 Decades ago there were Religious symbols found all over state and Federal land in this country and only since then have forces began fighting to remove them for evidence that We are now taking Secularism to a further extreme than past generations did.

If you were not so "transparently partisan" you would get that. I am an agnostic. I could care less about religion. I simply understand the intent of the constitution as it was meant, and not as liberals such as your self want to interpret it.

I agree that demanding no religious symbols be allowed on government property is more a violation of the free exercise clause than it is appropriate enforcement of the establishment clause. I simply wouldnt' call it extreme secularism, since IMO there is no such thing.

So are you going to answer my question about taxpayer funding of religious symbols or not?

 

[Charles_Main]

Extreme secular?? ??

The Constitution is secular, therefore it cannot be intrpretted too secularly.

Are you always this transparently partisan?

Wrong. This is all the Constitution says on the Subject.

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

Interpreting that to mean you can't allow a few Religious symbols on state land is indeed taking Secularism to the Extreme.

Look no further than the fact that until less than 3 Decades ago there were Religious symbols found all over state and Federal land in this country and only since then have forces began fighting to remove them for evidence that We are now taking Secularism to a further extreme than past generations did.

If you were not so "transparently partisan" you would get that. I am an agnostic. I could care less about religion. I simply understand the intent of the constitution as it was meant, and not as liberals such as your self want to interpret it.

I agree that demanding no religious symbols be allowed on government property is more a violation of the free exercise clause than it is appropriate enforcement of the establishment clause. I simply wouldnt' call it extreme secularism, since IMO there is no such thing.

So are you going to answer my question about taxpayer funding of religious symbols or not?

Ok bad choice of words.

I thought I did answer you. No I do not think tax dollars used to build and or Maintain a religious symbol constitutes a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Not strictly speaking anyways.

I mean at some point federal funds were probably used to put up that Plaque that is in the Supreme with the 10 commandments on it up. Do you really think just because some of our tax dollars paid for that plaque that congress has effectively made a law establishing a State Religion? Because that is basically what you are saying if you oppose it.

 

[manifold]

No I do not think tax dollars used to build and or Maintain a religious symbol constitutes a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Not strictly speaking anyways.

By that reasoning, the government could use tax money to build mosques all over the country and it wouldn't be unconstitutional. That's basically what you are saying and yes, I absolutely disagree.

 

[Charles_Main]

I agree that demanding no religious symbols be allowed on government property is more a violation of the free exercise clause than it is appropriate enforcement of the establishment clause. I simply wouldnt' call it extreme secularism, since IMO there is no such thing.

So are you going to answer my question about taxpayer funding of religious symbols or not?

Ok bad choice of words.

I thought I did answer you. No I do not think tax dollars used to build and or Maintain a religious symbol constitutes a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Not strictly speaking anyways.

I mean at some point federal funds were probably used to put up that Plaque that is in the Supreme with the 10 commandments on it up. Do you really think just because some of our tax dollars paid for that plaque that congress has effectively made a law establishing a State Religion? Because that is basically what you are saying if you oppose it.

By that reasoning, the government could use tax money to build mosques all over the country and it wouldn't be unconstitutional. That's basically what you are saying and yes, I absolutely disagree.

No I would Draw the line at Building Actual Houses of Worship. That seems a bit more than a mere cross or Crescent moon on the side of a building or the side of the road. Most of the recent cases brought up over this issue have been trying to get small things like a cross on a state capitol grounds or something removed. Talking about State funded Mosques or Churches is taking it to a whole new level.

When I talk about taking it to the extreme I am thinking about those people that would go so far as to remove the words "in god we trust" from our money. Thinking that violates the clause. That does not even specify which god, and yet the people I called Extreme secularist, want it gone anyways.

 

[manifold]

Do you really think just because some of our tax dollars paid for that plaque that congress has effectively made a law establishing a State Religion? Because that is basically what you are saying if you oppose it.

Where did the tax money come from? A law passed by Congress.

Where did the appropriation of funds come from? A law passed by Congress.


You do the math.

 

[manifold]

Ok bad choice of words.

I thought I did answer you. No I do not think tax dollars used to build and or Maintain a religious symbol constitutes a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Not strictly speaking anyways.

I mean at some point federal funds were probably used to put up that Plaque that is in the Supreme with the 10 commandments on it up. Do you really think just because some of our tax dollars paid for that plaque that congress has effectively made a law establishing a State Religion? Because that is basically what you are saying if you oppose it.

By that reasoning, the government could use tax money to build mosques all over the country and it wouldn't be unconstitutional. That's basically what you are saying and yes, I absolutely disagree.

No I would Draw the line at Building Actual Houses of Worship. That seems a bit more than a mere cross or Crescent moon on the side of a building or the side of the road. Most of the recent cases brought up over this issue have been trying to get small things like a cross on a state capitol grounds or something removed. Talking about State funded Mosques or Churches is taking it to a whole new level.

So in your opinion, minor violations of the establishment clause aren't really violations at all.

how convenient.

 

[Queen]

When I talk about taking it to the extreme I am thinking about those people that would go so far as to remove the words "in god we trust" from our money. Thinking that violates the clause. That does not even specify which god, and yet the people I called Extreme secularist, want it gone anyways.

Why worry so much about a tiny minority who wants to take it to the extreme? Really, you cons sure do worry and quake at every little tiny thing. Man up. Support the Constitution. The WHOLE thing. Not just the 2nd amendment. I'm not worried about your tiny minority who wants to repeal the 14th amendment. It will never happen. Just like In God We Trust will never be removed. Ya'll worry too much. Stop watching FOX, it's scaring you senseless.

 

[Charles_Main]

By that reasoning, the government could use tax money to build mosques all over the country and it wouldn't be unconstitutional. That's basically what you are saying and yes, I absolutely disagree.

No I would Draw the line at Building Actual Houses of Worship. That seems a bit more than a mere cross or Crescent moon on the side of a building or the side of the road. Most of the recent cases brought up over this issue have been trying to get small things like a cross on a state capitol grounds or something removed. Talking about State funded Mosques or Churches is taking it to a whole new level.

So in your opinion, minor violations of the establishment clause aren't really violations at all.

how convenient.

Strictly speaking the Establishment clause can only be violated by congress passing a law and explicitly Establishes an official State religion.

 

[Charles_Main]

When I talk about taking it to the extreme I am thinking about those people that would go so far as to remove the words "in god we trust" from our money. Thinking that violates the clause. That does not even specify which god, and yet the people I called Extreme secularist, want it gone anyways.

Why worry so much about a tiny minority who wants to take it to the extreme? Really, you cons sure do worry and quake at every little tiny thing. Man up. Support the Constitution. The WHOLE thing. Not just the 2nd amendment. I'm not worried about your tiny minority who wants to repeal the 14th amendment. It will never happen. Just like In God We Trust will never be removed. Ya'll worry too much. Stop watching FOX, it's scaring you senseless.

Because that Tiny Minority seems to be rather successful at getting what they want.

We just had a story about a Cross in Missouri I think it was. That was paid for by charity and was there to memorialize fallen police officers that was forced to be removed.

No state funds were used, and yet that so called tiny Minority fought it and won.

In that case peoples right to freedom of expression were taken away in order to adhere to an extreme idea of Separation of Church and state.

As far as you silly comment about FOX. I do not watch FOX any more or less than other sources of News. The story I just cited above I read about online. Not on FOX. It's not about fear, it is about being vigilant. In this case for the right to free expression of the people who paid to put up the memorial. I thought you Libs loved all our rights.

 

[manifold]

No I would Draw the line at Building Actual Houses of Worship. That seems a bit more than a mere cross or Crescent moon on the side of a building or the side of the road. Most of the recent cases brought up over this issue have been trying to get small things like a cross on a state capitol grounds or something removed. Talking about State funded Mosques or Churches is taking it to a whole new level.

So in your opinion, minor violations of the establishment clause aren't really violations at all.

how convenient.

Strictly speaking the Establishment clause can only be violated by congress passing a law and explicitly Establishes an official State religion.

That's your opinion, and far far from fact.

IMO, government funding of religious endeavors constitutes a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Historical precedent is on my side.

 

[manifold]

We just had a story about a Cross in Missouri I think it was. That was paid for by charity and was there to memorialize fallen police officers that was forced to be removed.

No state funds were used, and yet that so called tiny Minority fought it and won.

In that case peoples right to freedom of expression were taken away in order to adhere to an extreme idea of Separation of Church and state.

I'm not familiar with this story. But if you have presented the facts accurately then I agree that it's more a violation of free exercise than it is just enforcement of the establishment clause.

 

[manifold]

I think a lot of people do not realize that in many specific instances, there is a conflict between the free exercise of religion and the establishment clause. On one side people focus only on free expression, and on the other side people only care about establishment.

The way I see it, a government funded nativity scene violates the establishment clause and shouldn't be allowed. However, forbidding a privately funded nativity scene from being erected in a town square violates free expression.

Seems like a common sense compromise to me.

 

[Ravi]

I think a lot of people do not realize that in many specific instances, there is a conflict between the free exercise of religion and the establishment clause. On one side people focus only on free expression, and on the other side people only care about establishment.

The way I see it, a government funded nativity scene violates the establishment clause and shouldn't be allowed. However, forbidding a privately funded nativity scene from being erected in a town square violates free expression.

Seems like a common sense compromise to me.

What about voodoo sacrifices in a town square?

I mean seriously, if you are going to allow a privately funded nativity scene (which I have no problem with) should you not also allow any and all other privately funded religious expression?

 

[manifold]

I think a lot of people do not realize that in many specific instances, there is a conflict between the free exercise of religion and the establishment clause. On one side people focus only on free expression, and on the other side people only care about establishment.

The way I see it, a government funded nativity scene violates the establishment clause and shouldn't be allowed. However, forbidding a privately funded nativity scene from being erected in a town square violates free expression.

Seems like a common sense compromise to me.

What about voodoo sacrifices in a town square?

I mean seriously, if you are going to allow a privately funded nativity scene (which I have no problem with) should you not also allow any and all other privately funded religious expression?

As long as the ritual itself isn't illegal, I would have no problem with any religious group applying for, and being granted a permit to use public land.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think a lot of people do not realize that in many specific instances, there is a conflict between the free exercise of religion and the establishment clause. On one side people focus only on free expression, and on the other side people only care about establishment.

The way I see it, a government funded nativity scene violates the establishment clause and shouldn't be allowed. However, forbidding a privately funded nativity scene from being erected in a town square violates free expression.

Seems like a common sense compromise to me.

What about voodoo sacrifices in a town square?

I mean seriously, if you are going to allow a privately funded nativity scene (which I have no problem with) should you not also allow any and all other privately funded religious expression?

That's where we the people invoke "contemporary community standards"..
We as citizens make up communities which gives us the right to find certain things to be unacceptable.
For example, The display of so-called art ( term used very loosely) with the Crucifix sitting in a vat or urine and accompanying other controversial art was essentially run out of town in Charlotte, NC.
The locals just didn't want to see it and lots of people protested. So The exhibit skipped it's planned visit.

 

[Ravi]

I think a lot of people do not realize that in many specific instances, there is a conflict between the free exercise of religion and the establishment clause. On one side people focus only on free expression, and on the other side people only care about establishment.

The way I see it, a government funded nativity scene violates the establishment clause and shouldn't be allowed. However, forbidding a privately funded nativity scene from being erected in a town square violates free expression.

Seems like a common sense compromise to me.

What about voodoo sacrifices in a town square?

I mean seriously, if you are going to allow a privately funded nativity scene (which I have no problem with) should you not also allow any and all other privately funded religious expression?

That's where we the people invoke "contemporary community standards"..
We as citizens make up communities which gives us the right to find certain things to be unacceptable.
For example, The display of so-called art ( term used very loosely) with the Crucifix sitting in a vat or urine and accompanying other controversial art was essentially run out of town in Charlotte, NC.
The locals just didn't want to see it and lots of people protested. So The exhibit skipped it's planned visit.

So you are for separation of church and state. Got it. Not sure why it was hard for you to admit...but, whatever, thereisnobrain.