Originally posted by NorrinRadd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Why I Voted For Trump...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThat is, in fact, a very literal and conservative interpretation of the First Amendment since the prohibition is against the government from enacting laws that would establish or restrict the practice of religion. There is nothing that says that the government can't recognize or even prefer one religion over the others, just as long as the citizens are not compelled by law to do the same.
So as an example of judicial activism, this is a fail.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell, the Supreme Court has ruled against you! Had the Founders wanted government to have anything to do with religion, they wouldn't have added the first amendment to begin with.
It's about seperation of church/religion and state.
There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of Church and state.
But we know that if it were Muslim or Voodoo monuments in court houses, you'd be defending that as well, correct?
Nope, neither Islam or Voodoo have any historical or moral or philosophical link to the Founding.Last edited by seer; 09-16-2019, 08:37 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostWell, the Supreme Court has ruled against you! Had the Founders wanted government to have anything to do with religion, they wouldn't have added the first amendment to begin with. It's about seperation of church/religion and state. But we know that if it were Muslim or Voodoo monuments in court houses, you'd be defending that as well, correct?
And if a community erected a Muslim or Voodoo monument outside of a courthouse, I wouldn't be happy, and I think a good case could be made against it based on America's history and traditions, but I would have no legal grounds to object.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostCognitive dissonance is right up there with it.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostThereby changing the laws (plural) by removing a law (singular).The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell, the Supreme Court has ruled against you! Had the Founders wanted government to have anything to do with religion, they wouldn't have added the first amendment to begin with. It's about seperation of church/religion and state. But we know that if it were Muslim or Voodoo monuments in court houses, you'd be defending that as well, correct?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
(I bolded the pertinent part just for you)
Thomas Jefferson dealt with this issue in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802
source
Jefferson was assuring the congregation that the federal government could not interfere with their church or offer special favors to any particular sect.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThat's simply not how it works, Roy. Congress can change laws. SCOTUS can challenge or invalidate them. If SCOTUS invalidates a law, it is up to the Congress to revise it, or recognize it no longer applies.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostLaws are challenged in the Supreme Court, not by the Supreme Court. If SCOTUS invalidates a challenced law as unconstitutional, then it's invalidated, kaput! Congress can revise and re-enact a new version of the law if they so choose, because that's what they do, but the original law is no longer law.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostJimmy, the First Amendment says nothing about "the separation of Church and State". It has a "prohibition" clause, as well as an "establishment" clause, which you anti-Christian bigots always overlook:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
(I bolded the pertinent part just for you)
Thomas Jefferson dealt with this issue in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802
source
Jefferson was assuring the congregation that the federal government could not interfere with their church or offer special favors to any particular sect.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostLaws are challenged in the Supreme Court, not by the Supreme Court.
If SCOTUS invalidates a challenced law as unconstitutional, then it's invalidated, kaput!
Congress can revise and re-enact a new version of the law if they so choose, because that's what they do, but the original law is no longer law.
See, Roy? Even your Jimmy disputes your notion that SCOTUS can change laws.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou are talking about leftists courts who did not follow the Constitution. Take School prayer - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. A School district is not Congress, nor does the School district made law.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostPublic schools are government schools and the government is seperate from religion. Anyone who wants to is free to pray wherever and whenever they want to, but a public school is not a religious intitution.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostHe was assuring them that the government would have nothing to do with religion, thus building a wall between church and state. I bolded the pertinent part just for you.
From Politico....
On Feb. 10, 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court, citing Jefferson’s views, defined the reach of “separation of church and state” under the First Amendment. Justice Hugo Black, writing for a 5-4 majority in Everson v. Board of Education, held that “neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church,” adding:
“Neither [entity] can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
“No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”
Neither a state nor the federal government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.’”
See, Jimmy? The issue was about keeping the State out of Church business.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYou still didn't answer to the substance of Jims post. That Trumps request for Russian help was just sarcasm is a subjective belief which of course is the stance his supporters would adopt, but regardless, that doesn't speak to the gist of his post. Trump is an authoritarian who is abusing his office, diregarding the Constitution and undermining democracy here and around the world. He's Putin's boy!
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:09 PM
|
5 responses
50 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 02:27 AM
|
||
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
0 responses
10 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 08:53 AM
|
0 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 10:08 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM
|
28 responses
199 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 11:00 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
65 responses
462 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 10:40 AM
|
Comment