Man kicked out of town meeting for refusingto stand for Pledge

[boilermaker55]

Just like this dick should have been booted from the State of the Union address.
GOP Rep. Joe Wilson

You can never remove protesters from any public event? Really?

I have the right to block traffic on 42nd and Lex and protest? Really?

He was not disrupting the meeting, he had a right to be there

He was being a disruptive dick and as I said, he should have been escorted out.

He can be a dick in his own private space

 

[Dana7360]

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home and within the laws of our nation, is absolutely none of my business.

What do you have against threesomes?

Let me rephrase this.

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is absolutely none of my business.

 

[ogibillm]

What good is a pledge if you are forced to give it?

Any pledge should by definition, be voluntary

Even if you don't agree with the pledge, you should show respect towards those who died to give you that right.

Why is it there such a big issue regarding standing for the pledge, "people shouldn't be forced into something", yet you will defend forcing someone into a decision over what health care they "should" carry. I find that concern of individual rights and freedom with regard to being "forced" into something quite laughable in comparison.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

In addition to being Constitutional, the ACA doesn't "force" anyone to do anything, where it is not government's place to compel citizens to "show respect."

So what you are saying is that if a young person doesn't feel like they actually NEED to carry healthcare, the Federal Government will not use the IRS to inquire through a tax form and levy an additional tax (or any financial penalty) as a direct result of his personal decision? Got any proof of that?

the government doesn't force you to have a mortgage. but it does give you benefits for paying interest.

 

[BlindBoo]

While schools do require that the pledge be recited in public school classrooms, Rees is incorrect on the requirements. Students have the right to sit quietly if they do not wish to participate. In a 1942 case on this exact question, the U.S. Supreme Court held that students cannot be coerced into reciting or standing for the pledge. Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in his majority opinion that “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

The authoritarian Mayor should resign. Recall the ******.......

 

[Esmeralda]

That mayor was wrong to kick him out of that meeting.

I personally won't stand, put my hand to my heart and pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. It's ridiculous to me to make such a big deal of a piece of cloth. I wish people would have the same feeling for our nation and our people as they do a piece of cloth. If that pledge said allegiance to America not a piece of cloth, I would have different feelings about it.

I won't lie and say "under god" either. I don't believe in the christian god and there's no way I'm going to lie about it.

I have sat quietly countless times as other people said that pledge. No one has ever said one word about it to me much less kick me out of a public meeting because of it.

Tolerance goes two ways. People are demanding tolerance for the pledge but don't think they should have tolerance for those who want to sit quietly and not say it.

That mayor violated that man's first amendment right to sit quietly while that pledge was said. If I were that man I would find a good lawyer to sue the mayor and the city that it occurred.

Much like the respectful tolerance of sitting quietly and showing "tolerance" for those who wish to silently pray in school. I'm a bit curious how far this definition and observance of tolerance actually goes for those who express the need for it?

It's not the same thing. Having the freedom of expression to not salute the flag or stand for the pledge of allegiance is not the same as separation of church and state. Prayer in school violates the Constitution. Not standing for the pledge of allegiance is a constitutional right. Totally different things.

Except separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, rather we find "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is.

So you support the State getting involved in Church?

To have an accurate understanding of the First Amendment with regard to "religion" you first have to have an understanding of what is meant by the word ESTABLISHMENT. Very few can actually get that interpretation historically accurate and correct. My first question to you is; Do you know the parameters that define government actually establishing religion? (hint - there has never been an establishment of religion that fulfills this definition yet this country). Then I will explain through supported historical documents what our Founders and Congress during that period in history actually said. I'd much rather people actually learn about the history of their country than look to some ideological website for some modern unsupported opinion

You're so full of shit. We can take the 2nd Amendment and do the same thing: interpret what we think the founding fathers meant, and especially define what they meant by a militia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That mayor was wrong to kick him out of that meeting.

I personally won't stand, put my hand to my heart and pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. It's ridiculous to me to make such a big deal of a piece of cloth. I wish people would have the same feeling for our nation and our people as they do a piece of cloth. If that pledge said allegiance to America not a piece of cloth, I would have different feelings about it.

I won't lie and say "under god" either. I don't believe in the christian god and there's no way I'm going to lie about it.

I have sat quietly countless times as other people said that pledge. No one has ever said one word about it to me much less kick me out of a public meeting because of it.

Tolerance goes two ways. People are demanding tolerance for the pledge but don't think they should have tolerance for those who want to sit quietly and not say it.

That mayor violated that man's first amendment right to sit quietly while that pledge was said. If I were that man I would find a good lawyer to sue the mayor and the city that it occurred.

Much like the respectful tolerance of sitting quietly and showing "tolerance" for those who wish to silently pray in school. I'm a bit curious how far this definition and observance of tolerance actually goes for those who express the need for it?

It's not the same thing. Having the freedom of expression to not salute the flag or stand for the pledge of allegiance is not the same as separation of church and state. Prayer in school violates the Constitution. Not standing for the pledge of allegiance is a constitutional right. Totally different things.

Except separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, rather we find "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is.

Incorrect.

It can be found in the Constitution here:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District LII Legal Information Institute

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review predating the Constitution, and as authorized by the Constitution itself in Articles III and VI.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, I suffer from spinal stenosis, and it is sometimes painful for me to stand, depending on whether or not I am having one of my "good" days, or "bad days", so I guess that I should stay away from town all public meetings, because if I am having a "bad day", I won't be able to stand, and will be escorted out for being disruptive. If that were to happen, I hope that they also bring my cane along when they throw me out.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Except separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, rather we find "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is.

Incorrect.

It can be found in the Constitution here:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District LII Legal Information Institute

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review predating the Constitution, and as authorized by the Constitution itself in Articles III and VI.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

C Clayton Jones would have you believe that the interpretation of the First Amendment of the constitution can accurately be attained by looking at case law set in the twentieth century, he couldn't be more wrong.

Here is why. Ever perform an exercise where two people are having a two minute discussion over a task to be performed and all the very detailed steps involved, then THAT person passes it down to the next individual to try and accurately explain all the same detailed steps in order to what he heard to the next person? Then the25th person in the room, when he hears what is said to him, it's nothing like what the first person had tried to explain in the first place. That is the equivalency to what C Clayton Jones is trying to defend here through his statement.

However, this only shows that an accurate interpretation can ONLY be found during the time of those who wrote it, with quotes and decisions around that same period of time stating HOW something is to be interpreted.

Here is what was actually said of those who were involved in the drafting of the first Amendment.

When it was initially being drafted in August 15, 1789 of the House Select Committee, one of the initial drafts read:

"NO RELIGION shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

If this Amendment was to be about the removal of ALL religion from government, which no law shall be found to condone religion, then the Founders could have left it at that. However Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York, OBJECTED to the Select Committee's version stating:

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."

Which is why the FINAL version of the First Amendment therefor reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, ... ( with an important statement that was agreed upon and added to the amendment by the Founders ) or prohibit the free exercise thereof.[/U]


So what is meant by establishment?
Let's go back and see what statements were made -now pay close attention to the dates because that is the basis of where real "accuracy" is to be determined.... anything else and you have mere conjecture and unsupported opinion.

Congress of the United States of America on January 19, 1853, through the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee defined what was meant by the word "establishment".

"The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt to that establishment which existed in the mother-country ... endowment at the public expense, particular advantages to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who wish to reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, -- such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion....."
They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people ...

They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the DEAD AND REVOLTING SPECTACLE OF ATHEISTIC APATHY. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.

In the law, Sunday is a "dies non;".... The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits....
Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government.....
Here is the recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but the Christian Sabbath.... the recognition of the Christian Sabbath [by the Constitution] is complete and perfect."

Congress of the United States of America March 27,1854, received the report of Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary:

"What is an establishment of religion?

(1)It must have a creed, defining what a man MUST believe;

(2) it must have rites and ordinances, which believers MUST observe;

(3) it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites,

(4) it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist.

There has NEVER been an establishment of religion without all these....

At the adoption of the Constitution... every State... provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of Government...
Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a FREE people.
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard ALL religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.
It [Christianity] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, -- without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.
In this age there is can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."

This concludes PART I. On our discussion regarding the First Amendment as it pertains to religion.

 

[g5000]

The guy who would not stand for the pledge is an asshole.

Those who forced him to leave for not standing are much, much bigger assholes because they committed an offense against everything this country was created for.

 

[Nosmo King]

Oh, I think the 1st amendment activist was a dick for doing what he did.

Only, he has a right to do it.

Gunnutz should be defending this guy to the hilt.

The Mayor had the right to have him escorted out too.

How so? After a prayer that said we live in a nation where we're free to think as we want, where does the mayor get a right to have a citizen escorted from a meeting for thinking as he wanted? Where does the mayor's right come from?

 

[jillian]

Oh, I think the 1st amendment activist was a dick for doing what he did.

Only, he has a right to do it.

Gunnutz should be defending this guy to the hilt.

The Mayor had the right to have him escorted out too.

on what basis? there is no legal requirement that one stand for the pledge of allegiance. it is customary. but as a first amendment matter, the person pretty much has the right to do as he wishes.

 

[Esmeralda]

Except separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, rather we find "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is.

Incorrect.

It can be found in the Constitution here:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District LII Legal Information Institute

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review predating the Constitution, and as authorized by the Constitution itself in Articles III and VI.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

C Clayton Jones would have you believe that the interpretation of the First Amendment of the constitution can accurately be attained by looking at case law set in the twentieth century, he couldn't be more wrong.

Here is why. Ever perform an exercise where two people are having a two minute discussion over a task to be performed and all the very detailed steps involved, then THAT person passes it down to the next individual to try and accurately explain all the same detailed steps in order to what he heard to the next person? Then the25th person in the room, when he hears what is said to him, it's nothing like what the first person had tried to explain in the first place. That is the equivalency to what C Clayton Jones is trying to defend here through his statement.

However, this only shows that an accurate interpretation can ONLY be found during the time of those who wrote it, with quotes and decisions around that same period of time stating HOW something is to be interpreted.

Here is what was actually said of those who were involved in the drafting of the first Amendment.

When it was initially being drafted in August 15, 1789 of the House Select Committee, one of the initial drafts read:

"NO RELIGION shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

If this Amendment was to be about the removal of ALL religion from government, which no law shall be found to condone religion, then the Founders could have left it at that. However Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York, OBJECTED to the Select Committee's version stating:

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."

Which is why the FINAL version of the First Amendment therefor reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, ... ( with an important statement that was agreed upon and added to the amendment by the Founders ) or prohibit the free exercise thereof.[/U]


So what is meant by establishment?
Let's go back and see what statements were made -now pay close attention to the dates because that is the basis of where real "accuracy" is to be determined.... anything else and you have mere conjecture and unsupported opinion.

Congress of the United States of America on January 19, 1853, through the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee defined what was meant by the word "establishment".

"The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt to that establishment which existed in the mother-country ... endowment at the public expense, particular advantages to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who wish to reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, -- such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion....."
They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people ...

They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the DEAD AND REVOLTING SPECTACLE OF ATHEISTIC APATHY. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.

In the law, Sunday is a "dies non;".... The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits....
Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government.....
Here is the recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but the Christian Sabbath.... the recognition of the Christian Sabbath [by the Constitution] is complete and perfect."

Congress of the United States of America March 27,1854, received the report of Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary:

"What is an establishment of religion?

(1)It must have a creed, defining what a man MUST believe;

(2) it must have rites and ordinances, which believers MUST observe;

(3) it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites,

(4) it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist.

There has NEVER been an establishment of religion without all these....

At the adoption of the Constitution... every State... provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of Government...
Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a FREE people.
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard ALL religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.
It [Christianity] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, -- without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.
In this age there is can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."

This concludes PART I. On our discussion regarding the First Amendment as it pertains to religion.

Good Lord!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Except separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, rather we find "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is.

Incorrect.

It can be found in the Constitution here:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District LII Legal Information Institute

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review predating the Constitution, and as authorized by the Constitution itself in Articles III and VI.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

C Clayton Jones would have you believe that the interpretation of the First Amendment of the constitution can accurately be attained by looking at case law set in the twentieth century, he couldn't be more wrong.

Here is why. Ever perform an exercise where two people are having a two minute discussion over a task to be performed and all the very detailed steps involved, then THAT person passes it down to the next individual to try and accurately explain all the same detailed steps in order to what he heard to the next person? Then the25th person in the room, when he hears what is said to him, it's nothing like what the first person had tried to explain in the first place. That is the equivalency to what C Clayton Jones is trying to defend here through his statement.

However, this only shows that an accurate interpretation can ONLY be found during the time of those who wrote it, with quotes and decisions around that same period of time stating HOW something is to be interpreted.

Here is what was actually said of those who were involved in the drafting of the first Amendment.

When it was initially being drafted in August 15, 1789 of the House Select Committee, one of the initial drafts read:

"NO RELIGION shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

If this Amendment was to be about the removal of ALL religion from government, which no law shall be found to condone religion, then the Founders could have left it at that. However Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York, OBJECTED to the Select Committee's version stating:

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."

Which is why the FINAL version of the First Amendment therefor reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, ... ( with an important statement that was agreed upon and added to the amendment by the Founders ) or prohibit the free exercise thereof.[/U]


So what is meant by establishment?
Let's go back and see what statements were made -now pay close attention to the dates because that is the basis of where real "accuracy" is to be determined.... anything else and you have mere conjecture and unsupported opinion.

Congress of the United States of America on January 19, 1853, through the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee defined what was meant by the word "establishment".

"The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt to that establishment which existed in the mother-country ... endowment at the public expense, particular advantages to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who wish to reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, -- such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion....."
They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people ...

They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the DEAD AND REVOLTING SPECTACLE OF ATHEISTIC APATHY. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.

In the law, Sunday is a "dies non;".... The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits....
Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government.....
Here is the recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but the Christian Sabbath.... the recognition of the Christian Sabbath [by the Constitution] is complete and perfect."

Congress of the United States of America March 27,1854, received the report of Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary:

"What is an establishment of religion?

(1)It must have a creed, defining what a man MUST believe;

(2) it must have rites and ordinances, which believers MUST observe;

(3) it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites,

(4) it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist.

There has NEVER been an establishment of religion without all these....

At the adoption of the Constitution... every State... provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of Government...
Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a FREE people.
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard ALL religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.
It [Christianity] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, -- without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.
In this age there is can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."

This concludes PART I. On our discussion regarding the First Amendment as it pertains to religion.

Good Lord!

Well I have done some research looking back into history, uncovering the views and original intent of those framers and early discussions behind various parts of the Constitution. Religion under the First Amendment is just one. I'd rather not merely accept someone's commentary or opinion when documented historical facts speak so well on their own.

 

[regent]

For part of the war I was an MP at Fort Ord. When retreat began we had a time getting GI's to avoid scurrying for cover and instead stand at attention and salute as the flag was lowered. Once the band started they were caught. I think the feeling was at the time is if they could avoid retreat so be it, and maybe some of us believed that we had a right to illustrate our own patriotism in our own way?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well, I suffer from spinal stenosis, and it is sometimes painful for me to stand, depending on whether or not I am having one of my "good" days, or "bad days", so I guess that I should stay away from town all public meetings, because if I am having a "bad day", I won't be able to stand, and will be escorted out for being disruptive. If that were to happen, I hope that they also bring my cane along when they throw me out.

If that happens to you, I hope I'm there so I can boot the cop who tries right in his ass.

 

[rightwinger]

Winter Garden Commission adopts new policy for prayer pledge - FOX 35 News Orlando


The Winter Garden City Commission voted Friday afternoon to change the ceremony by which they open their meetings. The resolution they adopted calls for a moment of silence rather than a prayer and makes it clear no one has to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Except separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, rather we find "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is.

Incorrect.

It can be found in the Constitution here:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District LII Legal Information Institute

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review predating the Constitution, and as authorized by the Constitution itself in Articles III and VI.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

C Clayton Jones would have you believe that the interpretation of the First Amendment of the constitution can accurately be attained by looking at case law set in the twentieth century, he couldn't be more wrong.

Here is why. Ever perform an exercise where two people are having a two minute discussion over a task to be performed and all the very detailed steps involved, then THAT person passes it down to the next individual to try and accurately explain all the same detailed steps in order to what he heard to the next person? Then the25th person in the room, when he hears what is said to him, it's nothing like what the first person had tried to explain in the first place. That is the equivalency to what C Clayton Jones is trying to defend here through his statement.

However, this only shows that an accurate interpretation can ONLY be found during the time of those who wrote it, with quotes and decisions around that same period of time stating HOW something is to be interpreted.

Here is what was actually said of those who were involved in the drafting of the first Amendment.

When it was initially being drafted in August 15, 1789 of the House Select Committee, one of the initial drafts read:

"NO RELIGION shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

If this Amendment was to be about the removal of ALL religion from government, which no law shall be found to condone religion, then the Founders could have left it at that. However Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York, OBJECTED to the Select Committee's version stating:

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."

Which is why the FINAL version of the First Amendment therefor reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, ... ( with an important statement that was agreed upon and added to the amendment by the Founders ) or prohibit the free exercise thereof.[/U]


So what is meant by establishment?
Let's go back and see what statements were made -now pay close attention to the dates because that is the basis of where real "accuracy" is to be determined.... anything else and you have mere conjecture and unsupported opinion.

Congress of the United States of America on January 19, 1853, through the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee defined what was meant by the word "establishment".

"The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt to that establishment which existed in the mother-country ... endowment at the public expense, particular advantages to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who wish to reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, -- such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion....."
They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people ...

They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the DEAD AND REVOLTING SPECTACLE OF ATHEISTIC APATHY. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.

In the law, Sunday is a "dies non;".... The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits....
Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government.....
Here is the recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but the Christian Sabbath.... the recognition of the Christian Sabbath [by the Constitution] is complete and perfect."

Congress of the United States of America March 27,1854, received the report of Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary:

"What is an establishment of religion?

(1)It must have a creed, defining what a man MUST believe;

(2) it must have rites and ordinances, which believers MUST observe;

(3) it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites,

(4) it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist.

There has NEVER been an establishment of religion without all these....

At the adoption of the Constitution... every State... provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of Government...
Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a FREE people.
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard ALL religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.
It [Christianity] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, -- without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.
In this age there is can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."

This concludes PART I. On our discussion regarding the First Amendment as it pertains to religion.

Good Lord!

Well I have done some research looking back into history, uncovering the views and original intent of those framers and early discussions behind various parts of the Constitution. Religion under the First Amendment is just one. I'd rather not merely accept someone's commentary or opinion when documented historical facts speak so well on their own.

Yes, facts are important.

We have the establishement clause in the US Constitution. That is a fact.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Winter Garden Commission adopts new policy for prayer pledge - FOX 35 News Orlando


The Winter Garden City Commission voted Friday afternoon to change the ceremony by which they open their meetings. The resolution they adopted calls for a moment of silence rather than a prayer and makes it clear no one has to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance.

So, that clears that up, prior the Mayor had the ability to kick the asshole out, now the asshole can stay.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Except separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, rather we find "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is.

Incorrect.

It can be found in the Constitution here:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District LII Legal Information Institute

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review predating the Constitution, and as authorized by the Constitution itself in Articles III and VI.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

C Clayton Jones would have you believe that the interpretation of the First Amendment of the constitution can accurately be attained by looking at case law set in the twentieth century, he couldn't be more wrong.

Here is why. Ever perform an exercise where two people are having a two minute discussion over a task to be performed and all the very detailed steps involved, then THAT person passes it down to the next individual to try and accurately explain all the same detailed steps in order to what he heard to the next person? Then the25th person in the room, when he hears what is said to him, it's nothing like what the first person had tried to explain in the first place. That is the equivalency to what C Clayton Jones is trying to defend here through his statement.

However, this only shows that an accurate interpretation can ONLY be found during the time of those who wrote it, with quotes and decisions around that same period of time stating HOW something is to be interpreted.

Here is what was actually said of those who were involved in the drafting of the first Amendment.

When it was initially being drafted in August 15, 1789 of the House Select Committee, one of the initial drafts read:

"NO RELIGION shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

If this Amendment was to be about the removal of ALL religion from government, which no law shall be found to condone religion, then the Founders could have left it at that. However Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York, OBJECTED to the Select Committee's version stating:

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."

Which is why the FINAL version of the First Amendment therefor reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, ... ( with an important statement that was agreed upon and added to the amendment by the Founders ) or prohibit the free exercise thereof.[/U]


So what is meant by establishment?
Let's go back and see what statements were made -now pay close attention to the dates because that is the basis of where real "accuracy" is to be determined.... anything else and you have mere conjecture and unsupported opinion.

Congress of the United States of America on January 19, 1853, through the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee defined what was meant by the word "establishment".

"The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt to that establishment which existed in the mother-country ... endowment at the public expense, particular advantages to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who wish to reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, -- such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion....."
They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people ...

They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the DEAD AND REVOLTING SPECTACLE OF ATHEISTIC APATHY. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.

In the law, Sunday is a "dies non;".... The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits....
Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government.....
Here is the recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but the Christian Sabbath.... the recognition of the Christian Sabbath [by the Constitution] is complete and perfect."

Congress of the United States of America March 27,1854, received the report of Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary:

"What is an establishment of religion?

(1)It must have a creed, defining what a man MUST believe;

(2) it must have rites and ordinances, which believers MUST observe;

(3) it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites,

(4) it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist.

There has NEVER been an establishment of religion without all these....

At the adoption of the Constitution... every State... provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of Government...
Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a FREE people.
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard ALL religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.
It [Christianity] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, -- without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.
In this age there is can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."

This concludes PART I. On our discussion regarding the First Amendment as it pertains to religion.

Good Lord!

Well I have done some research looking back into history, uncovering the views and original intent of those framers and early discussions behind various parts of the Constitution. Religion under the First Amendment is just one. I'd rather not merely accept someone's commentary or opinion when documented historical facts speak so well on their own.

Yes, facts are important.

We have the establishement clause in the US Constitution. That is a fact.

... and to be accurate ... you have to know HISTORICALLLY what was the "intent" behind the wording of the word establishment from those Founders that were involved in writing the Amendment (to which Thomas Jefferson was out of the country at the moment of it's drafting). It also helps to know where these Founders came from, and their feelings regarding religion from quotes taken "in context". The Congress of 1853 and 1854 were (at that time) more familiar with their original intent, than say relying on the opinions of those over a century later.

 

[Andylusion]

CNN Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

A first amendment activist was escorted from a public meeting in Winter Garden FL for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance

Mayor Forces Man To Leave Public Meeting Because He Won t Stand During Prayer ThinkProgress

A Florida mayor ejected one of his constituents from a City Commission meeting on Thursday because he declined to stand during the invocation and pledge to the flag at the beginning of the meeting.
Winter Garden Mayor John Rees, a nonpartisan official leading an Orlando suburb of about 37,000, was caught on video demanding that an audience member stand for a prayer, which thanked God for “allowing us to live in a country where we’re free to believe, think, and pray.”
The audience member responded, “I don’t believe I have to do that, thank you.” After the prayer, Rees again instructed the constituent, identified by the Orlando Sentinel as Joseph Richardson, to stand for the pledge to the flag as “children have to in school.” Richardson again politely declined.
“Okay. I asked him to either stand or please be escorted out as we do the Pledge,” Rees says in the video. “It’s just not fair to our troops and people overseas, sir.”
City police then enforced the mayor’s demand and Richardson left.

Good deal. I support the mayor. You want to be part of the system? Great... but you have to respect the system. By openly saying your are against the system, why should we care, or hear what you think? Get out.

People keep saying they want a better America, and yet openly show their refusal to support America.