If the U.S. has no separation of church and state, what is the state religion?

[BillyZane]

Run your church's float in the city's 4th of day parade. No problem.

Authority-endorsed prayer over the public school intercom: big problem.

Praying in tongues in the middle of English class at the public middle school: big problem.

Praying without coercing one's neighbor or disrupting the public educational process: no problem.

NONE of those should be problem if no one is being coerced into taking part.

Why on Earth would anyone have a problem with a school having a prayer over the loudspeaker for those who with to participate, regardless of the religion? Assuming appropriate content I mean.

Are you incapable of just sitting still respectfully for a few moments?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result.

That’s a very strange statement considering the fact that liberals have been at the forefront of protecting the freedom and civil liberties of Americans for decades – from fighting for the civil rights of African-American with regard to segregation and the civil rights of Hispanic Americans with regard to discrimination in the 1950’s, to fighting for the civil rights of gays, same-sex couples, and transgender Americans today, it’s obvious that liberals have a clear and accurate understanding of the concept of freedom.

That is an even stranger statement considering that you think Democrats are liberal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Run your church's float in the city's 4th of day parade. No problem.

Authority-endorsed prayer over the public school intercom: big problem.

Praying in tongues in the middle of English class at the public middle school: big problem.

Praying without coercing one's neighbor or disrupting the public educational process: no problem.

Can you give an example of prayer that coerces someone?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Run your church's float in the city's 4th of day parade. No problem.

Authority-endorsed prayer over the public school intercom: big problem.

Praying in tongues in the middle of English class at the public middle school: big problem.

Praying without coercing one's neighbor or disrupting the public educational process: no problem.

NONE of those should be problem if no one is being coerced into taking part.

Why on Earth would anyone have a problem with a school having a prayer over the loudspeaker for those who with to participate, regardless of the religion? Assuming appropriate content I mean.

Are you incapable of just sitting still respectfully for a few moments?

You have to respect everyone.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision. School prayer is a controversial topic in American jurisprudence.

 

[BillyZane]

Run your church's float in the city's 4th of day parade. No problem.

Authority-endorsed prayer over the public school intercom: big problem.

Praying in tongues in the middle of English class at the public middle school: big problem.

Praying without coercing one's neighbor or disrupting the public educational process: no problem.

Can you give an example of prayer that coerces someone?

I could see a legitimate complaint if a school somehow "punished" kids who didn't participate in a prayer led over the loudspeaker, but if their only "punishment" is to sit there quietly for a few moments while those who wish to pray pray, well that's a pretty weak complaint.

 

[BillyZane]

Run your church's float in the city's 4th of day parade. No problem.

Authority-endorsed prayer over the public school intercom: big problem.

Praying in tongues in the middle of English class at the public middle school: big problem.

Praying without coercing one's neighbor or disrupting the public educational process: no problem.

NONE of those should be problem if no one is being coerced into taking part.

Why on Earth would anyone have a problem with a school having a prayer over the loudspeaker for those who with to participate, regardless of the religion? Assuming appropriate content I mean.

Are you incapable of just sitting still respectfully for a few moments?

You have to respect everyone.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision. School prayer is a controversial topic in American jurisprudence.

I didn't say it wasn't current law. I said it is stupid.

99% of our current problems can directly be tied to people who are far too invested in complaining about what other people are doing.

In the case you cited, you can't tell me a single person who was or is potentially harmed by a public prayer at a high school football game.

Do you know how much better this country would be if people would stop complaining about things that do not harm them in any way?

 

[JakeStarkey]

NONE of those should be problem if no one is being coerced into taking part.

Why on Earth would anyone have a problem with a school having a prayer over the loudspeaker for those who with to participate, regardless of the religion? Assuming appropriate content I mean.

Are you incapable of just sitting still respectfully for a few moments?

You have to respect everyone.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision. School prayer is a controversial topic in American jurisprudence.

I didn't say it wasn't current law. I said it is stupid.

99% of our current problems can directly be tied to people who are far too invested in complaining about what other people are doing.

In the case you cited, you can't tell me a single person who was or is potentially harmed by a public prayer at a high school football game.

Do you know how much better this country would be if people would stop complaining about things that do not harm them in any way?

Sure I can. I was a school board president for a number of years and on two other school boards, one public and one private. So, yeah, I have heard it from all sides.

The thing is this: you don't get to decide what harms other people on this matter. Not your role, not your right.

 

[Antares]

You have to respect everyone.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision. School prayer is a controversial topic in American jurisprudence.

I didn't say it wasn't current law. I said it is stupid.

99% of our current problems can directly be tied to people who are far too invested in complaining about what other people are doing.

In the case you cited, you can't tell me a single person who was or is potentially harmed by a public prayer at a high school football game.

Do you know how much better this country would be if people would stop complaining about things that do not harm them in any way?

Sure I can. I was a school board president for a number of years and on two other school boards, one public and one private. So, yeah, I have heard it from all sides.

The thing is this: you don't get to decide what harms other people on this matter. Not your role, not your right.

Prove it fuckwad.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The far righty reactionaries' fumbling and bumbling inability to understand the 1st Amendment historically from 1789 until today amuses me.

They can boo and hoo, and nothing will change for them the way they want.

It is what it is.

Well, the one fact you libbiesd cannot get by is that our US Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion.
So, you'll just have to be pissed off and grow up.
CASE CLOSED.

 

[thereisnospoon]

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

-The Constitution is a RESTRICTIVE document. It's purpose is to LIMIT government. It's why if you read the 2nd amendment for example you'll see the language "shall not be infringed". In other words: the 2nd doesn't grant you the right to bear arms. It doesn't state that you-or anybody else has that right. It does however state that that right "shall not be infringed"-meaning the government doesn't have that ability.

-This was done because if the bill of rights was truly a list of your rights-it would be impossible to include everything. That's why instead of being a document that grants power to the people-it's a document that instead restricts the power of government.

-The Constitution is very specific on what the powers of the government are on a federal level (and obviously under the 10th anything not expressed in the Constitution falls to the state level). If you could point out ANYWHERE in the Constitution that the federal government has the ability to establish an official state religion of the country-I'd love to see it. Because it doesn't exist. Therefore your argument would have to be on the state level (and that's your best case scenario for an argument).


-I suggest you read the Federalist Papers written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (to a small extent), if you wish to really understand the function and purpose of the Constitution more. If you have done so all ready-go and re-read them.

LOL, thanks for proving my point.

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

"The First Amendment in no way was EVER intended to guarantee anyone freedom from religion, sorry. " -- your words.

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

If one reminds a liberal that the US Constitution is a limiting document, their hair begins to fall out.

 

[Pogo]

LOL, thanks for proving my point.

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

"The First Amendment in no way was EVER intended to guarantee anyone freedom from religion, sorry. " -- your words.

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

Reply to your point B...
It doesn't. However, you nor anyone else may use your first amendment rights to squash the first amendment rights of others. In short, freedom FROM religion does not exist.
This entire premise is based on the liberal notion of 'offense'. Libs believe there is this unwritten 'right to not be offended'...
For example, you do not have the right to walk by someone's home and compel them "take down that cross from your home. It offends my right to be free of religion".
Another example.. The local Burger King here has on the wall, a framed display of the Ten Commandments. You do not have the right to compel the owner to remove the display because it "offends" you...You only recourse as an agnostic or atheist, is to make another fast food choice.
And finally, you do not possess the right to compel a tv station to stop broadcasting Sunday Morning religious programming because it "offends you"....You have the right to choose other things to watch.
I get pretty sick and tired of the left wing perpetually offended running to the nearest courthouse to file piles of lawsuits just because they have thin skin.
You libs are real good at paying ip service to the concept of 'live and let live'...So as long as everyone obeys your direction and lives within the bounds of your point of view.

You must live in a Biizarro comic book where fantasies like this happen...

What is it called? "Strawman Monthly"?

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

"The First Amendment in no way was EVER intended to guarantee anyone freedom from religion, sorry. " -- your words.

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

Too funny, they came here because they weren't ALLOWED to worship as they pleased BECAUSE their "GOV" MADE them worship the way it decreed.

The 1st amendment was written to pr0tect them from that EVER happening again.

It was written to ENSURE that "right" not someone else's "right" NOT worship, I don't care how you stand it on it's head you are arguing it backwards.

Period.

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

Sorry....

For the 3rd time:

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

It doesn't...You are deliberately arguing a negative point.
That won't wash.
The US Constitution is silent on what the people can and cannot do.
The Legislative Branch makes laws restricting or approving acts.
the Constitution defines what government can do. If there is no provision or Amendment covering a particular act or idea, then the premise is government CANNOT commit that act or further that idea.

 

[thereisnospoon]

For the 3rd time:

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

For the FIRST time have you ever even read the First Amendment?

Hamilton....

Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

I'm well aware of the 1st, and what it means. But by suggesting that it doesn't mean "from religion" is like suggesting that the 2nd doesn't mean "from arms". So let's compare:

We can both agree (obviously) that we have the right to religion and arms. We can also agree that we have the right not to purchase arms, and the right not to believe in religion.

But with your logic, are you suggesting that individuals don't have the right "from arms"?

Do you honestly believe that individuals should have to pay for another individual's gun? Of course not-that's ridiculous. And it's just as ridiculous as being forced to pay for an individual's religious expression.

The bottom line here is no individual nor does the government have the right to 'compel' belief.
Nor does government or any individual have the right to 'preclude'.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Our state religion? is that the question?

The worship of money and power. The founders would be very unhappy.

Yes we do have a state religion and it is the religion of money. Redfish nails it.

Think about it - any rejection of Lord God All-Money is treated as heresy. Greed is go(o)d. Corporations are absolved from sins and even given voices if not saint status.

Then as a matter of course you then would eschew all financial gain.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

"The First Amendment in no way was EVER intended to guarantee anyone freedom from religion, sorry. " -- your words.

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

Reply to your point B...
It doesn't. However, you nor anyone else may use your first amendment rights to squash the first amendment rights of others. In short, freedom FROM religion does not exist.
This entire premise is based on the liberal notion of 'offense'. Libs believe there is this unwritten 'right to not be offended'...
For example, you do not have the right to walk by someone's home and compel them "take down that cross from your home. It offends my right to be free of religion".
Another example.. The local Burger King here has on the wall, a framed display of the Ten Commandments. You do not have the right to compel the owner to remove the display because it "offends" you...You only recourse as an agnostic or atheist, is to make another fast food choice.
And finally, you do not possess the right to compel a tv station to stop broadcasting Sunday Morning religious programming because it "offends you"....You have the right to choose other things to watch.
I get pretty sick and tired of the left wing perpetually offended running to the nearest courthouse to file piles of lawsuits just because they have thin skin.
You libs are real good at paying ip service to the concept of 'live and let live'...So as long as everyone obeys your direction and lives within the bounds of your point of view.

You must live in a Biizarro comic book where fantasies like this happen...

What is it called? "Strawman Monthly"?

Hit a nerve, didn't I?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I didn't say it wasn't current law. I said it is stupid.

99% of our current problems can directly be tied to people who are far too invested in complaining about what other people are doing.

In the case you cited, you can't tell me a single person who was or is potentially harmed by a public prayer at a high school football game.

Do you know how much better this country would be if people would stop complaining about things that do not harm them in any way?

Sure I can. I was a school board president for a number of years and on two other school boards, one public and one private. So, yeah, I have heard it from all sides.

The thing is this: you don't get to decide what harms other people on this matter. Not your role, not your right.

Prove it fuckwad.

Antares, your lack of creditability on the Board makes such a request by you laughable.

No, son, it is not your right or role to decide what harms other people on this matter.

You can ***** all you want, and we can laugh at you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far righty reactionaries' fumbling and bumbling inability to understand the 1st Amendment historically from 1789 until today amuses me.

They can boo and hoo, and nothing will change for them the way they want.

It is what it is.

Well, the one fact you libbiesd cannot get by is that our US Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion.
So, you'll just have to be pissed off and grow up.
CASE CLOSED.

Argue with SCOTUS, my friend.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

"The First Amendment in no way was EVER intended to guarantee anyone freedom from religion, sorry. " -- your words.

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

Reply to your point B...
It doesn't. However, you nor anyone else may use your first amendment rights to squash the first amendment rights of others. In short, freedom FROM religion does not exist.
This entire premise is based on the liberal notion of 'offense'. Libs believe there is this unwritten 'right to not be offended'...
For example, you do not have the right to walk by someone's home and compel them "take down that cross from your home. It offends my right to be free of religion".
Another example.. The local Burger King here has on the wall, a framed display of the Ten Commandments. You do not have the right to compel the owner to remove the display because it "offends" you...You only recourse as an agnostic or atheist, is to make another fast food choice.
And finally, you do not possess the right to compel a tv station to stop broadcasting Sunday Morning religious programming because it "offends you"....You have the right to choose other things to watch.
I get pretty sick and tired of the left wing perpetually offended running to the nearest courthouse to file piles of lawsuits just because they have thin skin.
You libs are real good at paying ip service to the concept of 'live and let live'...So as long as everyone obeys your direction and lives within the bounds of your point of view.

You must live in a Biizarro comic book where fantasies like this happen...

What is it called? "Strawman Monthly"?

Yes, Pogo, that is the straw man fallacy of the quarter. Just wow. We are talking about tax-supported, public-interest situations, and he goes all off in another way.

 

[Antares]

Sure I can. I was a school board president for a number of years and on two other school boards, one public and one private. So, yeah, I have heard it from all sides.

The thing is this: you don't get to decide what harms other people on this matter. Not your role, not your right.

Prove it fuckwad.

Antares, your lack of creditability on the Board makes such a request by you laughable.

No, son, it is not your right or role to decide what harms other people on this matter.

You can ***** all you want, and we can laugh at you.

Meaning YOU don't feel the need to prove ANYTHING you say, got it.

Jizz boy.

 

[Pogo]

Prove it fuckwad.

Antares, your lack of creditability on the Board makes such a request by you laughable.

No, son, it is not your right or role to decide what harms other people on this matter.

You can ***** all you want, and we can laugh at you.

Meaning YOU don't feel the need to prove ANYTHING you say, got it.

Jizz boy.

Uh -- "jizz boy"? Rooly?

You can't "prove" an opinion, ya unrooly twit.