1st Amendment

[bobcollum]

No wonder lefties are so out of touch with real America.

Define "real America".

I hope you don't describe yourself, my sides can't take it.

70 to 80 percent of US population believes in religion and practices it in some form. But then some of you just aren't to bright.

When you can provide evidence that 70 to 80% of the US population is devout enough to take the stance of this op I won't think it's total bullshit.

 

[Unkotare]

What "stance" is that?

 

[bobcollum]

Hittin the bottle hard today?

 

[Unkotare]

Hittin the bottle hard today?

I answered your question, why won't you answer mine?

 

[bobcollum]

Hittin the bottle hard today?

I answered your question, why won't you answer mine?

Why do you need me to tell you what the stance of the op is? You typed it yourself.

Now you're going to pretend that there was no particular stance to it?

 

[Unkotare]

What stance do you think you see?

 

[bobcollum]

So, yes.

 

[Unkotare]

I answered your question but you don't have the character to do the same. I guess you are satisfied with what that says about you.

 

[bobcollum]

I'm sorry you can't be honest about this.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm sorry you can't be honest about this.

Honest? You won't answer a simple question. Does that mean we get to decide what you meant and then make decisions based on your refusal to answer?

 

[bobcollum]

The only two defending the OP are both pretending to be unaware of any particular stance affiliated with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To have freedom of religion, fist you need freedom FROM religion. (If this was a Christian nation, then there would laws be in place that is against other religions, and this wouldn't be America.)

Yes, the 1st amendment goes both ways.

No it doesn't.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm sorry you can't be honest about this.

I'm sorry you've decided you are not worth taking seriously, you no-class little punk.

 

[Unkotare]

The only two defending the OP are both pretending to be unaware of any particular stance affiliated with it.

Go away, troll.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The first defends both freedom of and freedom from.

Can you explain why the EOC filed suit to force Fires to allow an employee to dress the way her religious beliefs instruct her? Could it be you have your head so far up your ass that you can't see anything?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103609096/EEOC-v-Fries-Restaurant-Management

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The government cannot compel anyone to believe in a god or compel anyone to live their life based on the teachings of a god.

That's freedom from religion.

If one does believe in a god, the government cannot dictate which god they believe in or which religion they practice.

That's freedom of religion.

No, that is freedom of religion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does the obama administration see the 1st Amendment as a freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion?

The president accepts settled case law with regard to First Amendment jurisprudence.

The government cannot compel anyone to believe in a god or compel anyone to live their life based on the teachings of a god.

That's freedom from religion.

If one does believe in a god, the government cannot dictate which god they believe in or which religion they practice.

That's freedom of religion.

Correct, and as with all other rights, the First Amendment is not absolute.

For example, one’s religious tenets can not be used to exempt or excuse a citizen from abiding an otherwise just law seeking a reasonable goal. See: Employment Division v. Smith (1988).

The mistake many conservatives make is to incorrectly infer that enforcing Establishment Clause doctrine is somehow a ‘violation’ of the Free Exercise Clause.

It is not.

The First Amendment places restrictions on government only, not private citizens. A private citizen may freely express his faith in any venue he wishes, provided such expression does not violate the law.

Invalidating laws, measures, or like ordinances which violate the Constitutional principle of separation of church and State is not, therefore, ‘being hostile’ to religion; indeed, Establishment Clause doctrine is designed to preserve religion and not allow faith to become a weapon of the state:

Whether the key word is "endorsement," "favoritism," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same. The [p594] Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 687 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring).

[Government endorsement of religion] sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community…

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

No, that's freedom from government power.

One is free from government excess, not its legitimate authority.

If the president accepted settled case law he would never have permitted DHS to impose the contraception mandate on religious institutions, would he?

 

[bobcollum]

The only two defending the OP are both pretending to be unaware of any particular stance affiliated with it.

Go away, troll.

You want to play coy about the threads point, I see no reason to do any more than troll you for it.

 

[bobcollum]

I'm sorry you can't be honest about this.

I'm sorry you've decided you are not worth taking seriously, you no-class little punk.

You don't know the stance of your own thread, what about that should be taken seriously?

 

[Unkotare]

The only two defending the OP are both pretending to be unaware of any particular stance affiliated with it.

Go away, troll.

You want to play coy about the threads point, I see no reason to do any more than troll you for it.

You're done here, troll. Go away.