The God question is embarassing

[bodecea]

C_Clayton_Jones said: ↑
The Constitution guarantees freedom from religion....

"Freedom OF religion." Uk

Yes Uk.
You are 100% correct on the wording.

BUT !!

You are 100% wrong on the MEANING.

SCOTUS has already ruled that "... freedom of religion" includes freedom from religion. It's as fundamental as Marbury v. Madison.

YAWN

and far too many on the Left see freedom FROM religion as the right to impose on others their desire to not have to be bothered even seeing anything with religious implications in the public square

So it would be OK to see things with religious implications OTHER than Christian in the public square?

 

[bedowin62]

C_Clayton_Jones said: ↑
The Constitution guarantees freedom from religion....

"Freedom OF religion." Uk

Yes Uk.
You are 100% correct on the wording.

BUT !!

You are 100% wrong on the MEANING.

SCOTUS has already ruled that "... freedom of religion" includes freedom from religion. It's as fundamental as Marbury v. Madison.

YAWN

and far too many on the Left see freedom FROM religion as the right to impose on others their desire to not have to be bothered even seeing anything with religious implications in the public square

So it would be OK to see things with religious implications OTHER than Christian in the public square?

sure; why not??

 

[sear]

" far too many on the Left see freedom FROM religion as the right to impose on others their desire to not have to be bothered even seeing anything with religious implications in the public square " b6 #58

Very well b6.
I shall leave unchallenged your superlative authority as a spokesperson for "the left".

But your position, and reality are at conspicuous odds.

It's not "the left" that tried to prevent same sex marriage.

"... changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure." U.S. President Bush (younger)

Your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins.

If you don't want an abortion, or don't wish to engage in same sex marriage, that's well with your right.
But Republicans have no right to hold theological veto over our countrymen that have alternate preference.

" the Left see freedom FROM religion as the right to impose on others " b6 #58

I'm not sure who writes your material b6. But Jimmy Kimmel might keep you in gravy for decades!

 

[Unkotare]

C_Clayton_Jones said: ↑
The Constitution guarantees freedom from religion....

"Freedom OF religion." Uk

Yes Uk.
You are 100% correct on the wording.

BUT !!

You are 100% wrong on the MEANING.

SCOTUS has already ruled that "... freedom of religion" includes freedom from religion. It's as fundamental as Marbury v. Madison.

YAWN

and far too many on the Left see freedom FROM religion as the right to impose on others their desire to not have to be bothered even seeing anything with religious implications in the public square

So it would be OK to see things with religious implications OTHER than Christian in the public square?

There are all the time.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I love it when the anti-Christian lefty moonbats crawl out from under their rocks.

 

[Slyhunter]

Carson didnt answer that question.

 

[Davros]

Freedom OF religion.

Freedom FROM religion – where the people are free to believe as they wish – or to be free from faith altogether – absent coercion from government, absent punitive measures by government, and where theists are prohibited from using government to compel adherence to religious dogma.

It's known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, found in the US Constitution.

How do you get "freedom from religion" from "free exercise thereof"? It's freedom of religion, which of course includes the right to follow no religion at all.

You sound like you want to force atheism on all the believers in the public square, such that they can only freely practice religion when they're cloistered away in the dungeon of their home or church.

That is not Constitutional.

Do you want to see Korans and/or Muslim religious rhetoric on government property?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

That's not what this thread is about, now is it? But just for you I'll take 1 post down the rabbit hole.

I wouldn't care personally, but that would be unconstitutional depending on the context because it would be "establishment of religion" which the government is prohibited from doing.

Now do try to get back on topic ...

Glad you answered. However, why do you think my question isn't relevant?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The thread is about whether God ought to have any role in the minds/actions of policymakers. Not the same topic as whether there should be religious displays on public property. I was a bit harsh, and while your question is related to the issue at hand, it was not a direct challenge to my point that citizens should be able to exercise their religion freely in the public square, not just when cloistered away in their home and church. In fact the Constitution guarantees this right.

 

[Unkotare]

Carson didnt answer that question.

That question should not have been asked to every person on the podium as it was sure to become hackneyed after two or three responses, with everyone feeling obligated to say much the same thing. It might have been better as one of those "raise your hand"-type questions, with follow-up as needed.

 

[Davros]

C_Clayton_Jones said: ↑
The Constitution guarantees freedom from religion....

"Freedom OF religion." Uk

Yes Uk.
You are 100% correct on the wording.

BUT !!

You are 100% wrong on the MEANING.

SCOTUS has already ruled that "... freedom of religion" includes freedom from religion. It's as fundamental as Marbury v. Madison.

YAWN

and far too many on the Left see freedom FROM religion as the right to impose on others their desire to not have to be bothered even seeing anything with religious implications in the public square

So it would be OK to see things with religious implications OTHER than Christian in the public square?

Yes.

 

[Davros]

Carson didnt answer that question.

What question?

Doctor Who? Doctor Who? Doctor Who? Doctor Who?

 

[hazlnut]

No place for this in a political debate..
Running a nation on your religious beliefs has been done

Its called Iran

You think having a Muslim in the White House has done us any favors?

We should try it some day?

Couldn't be worse than all the white and one black christians we've had.