posted
"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
As a Christian first and a patriot second, I do agree with you religion has no place in government. We have the right worship God or anything else or nothing at all.
That being said, even with a degree in the Biological Sciences, I do not believe in the Theory of Evolution as fact. It is only theory and one that is falling apart all the time. It takes a greater leap of faith to believe that life forms of the nature and complexity that we have today evolved from a "lifeless" primordial soup.
posted
pandora? please tell me you didn't get your degree from Liberty University....
i think we can safely say that God is still creating the universe, and that evolution is one of the tools....
there is no evidence disproving evolution... complexity is READILY explainable by people who understand moleculalr biology...but it takes 7 years of grad school to "get it"...
IMO? the step from primordial soup to life is much different, and does still beg me to accept a Creator....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The old biology professor at the christian college I attended years ago began our biology class by stating, "I believe in evolution...(the class is surprised now)...I beleive God created the universe and it's been evolving ever since." At the time I thought, 'Wow, what a radical guy!'
Posts: 1235 | From: Anacortes, WA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a molecular biologist...No to Liberty University (Whatever that is) and sorry, I guess I should have qualified by saying "Darwinian Evolution"
Posts: 43 | From: Midwest | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Supreme Court has seen it, they refused to hear it on I believe two seperate occasions, most recently just a year or two ago.
You can argue that they used technicalities but if this was an issue with them don't you think they would have heard it?
Can't say that I have any imagination issues.
The Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
You stated:
"this part is clear in the way it states that the Creator and the government are SEPARATE"
Where exactly does it say the creator and government are seperate? The way I read it, governments are instituted among men to secure the rights given us by our creator. I see no seperation there.
And they did have a provision for churchs/religion in the Constitution. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
The Government was founded by people that wanted to freely practice their religion without government telling them how they should do it. Again, you read things that aren't there into the obvoius. They even wrote it down in the Bill of Rights. This nation was founded by numerous religious groups trying to escape persecution in Europe. They weren't coming here to escape religion.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
wow, its hard to believe someone does not know. well i will explain it to you.... God had a son through a virgin... he was crucified and rose from the dead. All the folks hanging around at the time were quit shocked... then a bunch of people saw him walking around alive and they were convinced... so much so that all the witness were killed for there belief....on the day of penticost peter preached a sermon and thousands were convinced and they spread the news of this all over the planet.... and its been that way ever since.... they even found his grave but it was empty....which was to be expected since he rose from the dead...they called him jesus and jesus said the only way to heaven was through him... so everyone believed this since there was the proof of him rising from the dead...its really quit simple actually and its been around a long time... its really not in dispute even the koran says this...its kinda of a well established fact right along side your abc's and 123's...kinda like the law of gravity...
Posts: 1070 | From: louisville,ky,usa | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pandora: Not a molecular biologist...No to Liberty University (Whatever that is) and sorry, I guess I should have qualified by saying "Darwinian Evolution"
Liberty Univerity is the home seat of the moral majority... run by Falwell hisownbadself...
and they are very good at the propaganda game....
they even give classes on how to create a religious experience for church meetings by using sound and light..or so i have been told by one of their recent grads...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
How is this going to destroy the Constitution? Remember, the Constitution says we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
No, the Constitution says no such thing. What it says is that no body of government may use its power and authority to force me (or you or anyone) to respect any religion. It further grants to the individual the free choice of practicing a religion of his or her choosing (though I do wonder if the framers intended to grant that freedom to women and children and it is quite clear they did not intend it to apply to other races). However, it grants to no one the power to practice any religion so as to impose his or her religion upon another through the action or inaction of government.
What you want is to misconstrue the Constitution so as to get away with practicing your religion in a manner that would use governmental power to impose your religious practices on me, thereby, denying me the freedoms the Constitution provides. The Constitution grants to no one the power to practice any religion in such a manner as to impose his or her religion upon another through any action or inaction of government.
Practice your religion in a manner that places NO requirement or burdon, of any kind, on me or any other person, at any time, or place, and you will not be acting contrary to the Constitution!
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I read the words of Thomas Jefferson, freedom from religion is indeed as much a right as freedom of religion.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a pittiful affront to reality and pitiful insult to me.
You need to learn to stick to the subject.
I don't owe you any research, examples, or listing of things you don't seem to be able to comprehend, but I'll promise you that if you actually believe the agenda you propose does not put into effect "..laws in the United States promoting Christianity", then you are not doing a very good job of thinking.
Just where in the Constitution is there even a mention of a god, let alone anything suggesting I am not free to choose to not believe in one or am not free from any and all religious practices?
Be very careful of offending and insulting me by declaring what my religious beliefs may or may not be, for one of the privileges the Constitution grants to me is to not be required to answer to you or anyone else what my religion is or how I practice it. Otherwise, I would not be free to practice it as I choose.
Logic seems to escape you. If the constitution grants to me the free exercise of religion and the practice thereof, then that imposes on the government (and you) the requirement to accept whatever I choose (so long as my choices do not impose on others), not what you choose or the Government chooses for me.
There is no provision of the Constitution that imposes on me (or you) any religion or practice of religion. Certainly, among the enumerated or delegated powers within the Constitution, there is none saying I am required to adhere to or accept any religion or even some religion. Thus, by the strictest of constructions, stemming from either Amendment 9 or Amendment 10 of the Constitution (and certainly from their combination), there is nothing making me subject to any religion or practice of any religion and I am free to believe as I see fit.......which includes complete freedom FROM religion. (Anyway, even if it were the case that requiring a person to be religious could be legal, it remains the fact that religion is belief. Who is dumb enough to think you can decide how someone else thinks?)
Religion is not the belief that there is a god, more than one god, any god, or that there was or is some controlling force beyond natural law (that's physics and chemistry and mathematics and such....natural phylosophy, as was the belief system of the overwhelming majority of the members of the Constitutional Convention....not all, but most of them). (Come to think about it, religion might even include the posibility of natural law not being in effect.) Neither is it only a religion if it is "recognized" or "official" and, by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in the United States, if any body having the power to impose restrictions of any kind did do so, it would be unconstitutional, since that power is strictly forbidden by the first Amendment.
Indeed, if it is my choice to choose no religion, since that choice is not specifically denied to me by the Constitution and there is nothing within some enumeration in the Constitutioon that restricts that choice, I do have the right, by the Constitution to be free from religion!
By the way, there are numerous State and federal court rulings recognizing the right of people to be free FROM religion. In most states, recognizing and accepting that fact, they have amended any requirement to swear to any god or religion in official proceedings, including in court.
Now, again, STOP declaring what my religion is or is not or how I choose or don't choose to practice it, for I know damed well that is a power that the Constitution specifically awarded to me and no one else, YOU INCLUDED.
It appears to me that you have gotten your ego tied into winning. I don't think that is a wise thing to do. There is nothing in this to win. I have said before and I say again, I accept that your religion is your choice and I insist that you have the right to believe in it and pactice it however you wish, SO LONG AS IT DOESN NO IMPOSE ON OTHERS. If you can step beyong the ego thing and grant me that same respect, it would be appreciate. I hope you will not persist in denying me a similar respect.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
You may be right about the Supreme Court and the Pledge. I have some recolectin that this came before them about 4 or 5 years ago and they refused to hear it then as well. I do not know that for sure.
They may have chickend out as you say but they did refuse to hear it. That left it in place.
bdgee,
You cannot have freedom of religion and freedom from religion at the same time. They contradict each other and the Constitution clearly supports freedom of religion.
You are the one trying to misconstrue the Constitution into saying something it clearly does not.
You just don't get it, your demand of freedom from religion DOES impose on others, that is why there is NO freedom from religion. You do not have the right to not be offended in this country. You may not like what others do but you can't stop them from doing it if it infringes on their basic rights.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the moral majority, and others in the "movement" have attempted to re-write US history....
the pledge was originally written without under god in it....
it was added later....
the reason? it had to with defining the difference between US and the Godless commies in the USSR....
the last time the religous nuts got political control like this? we ended up with PROHIBITION... personally? i don't drink ... (maybe some cabernet once awhile) BUT nobody can say prohibition was good for the country....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Constitution is clear, we have freedom of religion. What I do at home and what I do at work is no different. I am the same person with the same rights. The Constitution does not differentiate between "work" and "home". The Constitution does not allow the government to take away my religious freedoms because I walk through a door where others might encounter me.
You guys call me intollerant but I could care less what any of you do. You are the ones that are saying I cannot do this or I cannot do that, just because you do not want to see it.
The Constitution has worked for so long because it is a well written document. You have to really be reaching to believe that this document is going to do something so foolish as to introduce a contradition into its basic rights. Freedom from and freedom of religion cannot co-exist.
You confuse rulings of activist judges, judges with political views, that impose them on their interpretations rather than what the Constitution actually says. It is not, most especially in the Bill of Rights, a difficult document to read or understand.
In issues of safety, certain freedoms have been limited. You don't have the right to slander someone is a limit on your free speach. Even religion has been restircted in cases of drug use or sacrifices.
The Mormons continue to go door to door, and street preachers continue to stand on their soap boxes. Attempts have been made to restrict these people and it always gets thrown back as basic rights of freedom of speach and religion.
On the Supreme Court and the Pledge, I was wrong. They did hear oral arguments, they did not simply refuse to hear the case. After hearing oral arguments, they ruled the individual bringing the case had no grounds to bring the case as he was not the custodial parent. They left it stand. It was an avoidance of the issue, but they could have taken it up, they simply chose not to.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
That is not re-writing history, it is re-writing the pledge. They inserted it when they did as you said to differentiate between us and the "godless" commies. They also changed the mottos on our currency at about the same time for the same reason.
Re-writing history is when you try to hide something or change something which happened in the past. The Pledge of Allegience has been changed a total of 4 times over the years. It was not made an official pledge until 1942.
Eisenhower said at the time of inserting "under God" into the pledge:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and when they do? they will have to say it's unconstitional....
they may NOT, but they would be wrong...
nobody is telling you you can't practice your religion man...
i am saying you don't want it in our govt EVER...
the ebb and flow of political power is very much like a pendulum...
do you really want religious doctrine being dictated to you by whoever is in the white house or the senate?
i don't really care about "Under God" being in the pledge, but what happens when one "sect" of Christianity suddenly adopts new strange rules?
the Mormons are one such sect...i have nothing against them, but they have a hierarchy in their church system thats against the teachings of Jesus In MY Opinion... my take on Jesus' teachings is that he was saying anybody can stand right next to God and there is nobody closer than you or me...( i note the evangels SEEM TO me to be adopting a different form of this hierarchy system too)
the hierachies are very dangerous stuff IMO....
(BTW? if like Tolkein? you probably would like Robert Jordans Wheel of Time series... he's getting ready to relase the eleventh inthe series)
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
It will be interesting to see how they rule. It could go either way. I expect it will stand as it does not specifically endorse any religion, just the idea that there is someone higher than us.
bdgee is telling everyone how they cannot practice their religion. They can practice it so long as he doesn't ever have to encounter it in any way.
I don't want the government telling me how to practice my religion. They are not doing so when they allow certain things to happen, "under God" in the pledge is one, the 10 commandments on a wall are another. These are just very simple basic things that nearly everyone is aware of. No one is forced to recite the pledge, no one is forced to stop and read the commandments. They are not enforced as laws.
I've been reading Jordan's Wheel of Time. I like them but they could have been condensed into something less than half of the size they are and still conveyed the story. He has a ton of "nothing" in them that just fills pages. I just picked up the new one over the weekend. I've only read the prologue so far.
I've also been reading Terry Brooks Sword of Shanara series. I like them better than the Jordan series. The problem with both though is thcy come out so far apart, at least a year, sometimes two between volumes. I probable read an average of 4 or 5 books a month, in the winter that average goes up. By the time the next volume comes out, I have to refresh what happened in the previous one.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
still and awesome examination of the nature of good and evil.... and politics too...
read the first one of the Shanara, decided that Goodkind and Jordan were enough fantasy at one time... Goodkinds work so closely parallels Jordans that i wonder if Goodkind doesn't read Jordan before he writes..i suppose that it could be coincidence ...nah...LOL
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forgot about Goodkind, I'm reading that series as well. I'm also reading the Eric Von Lustbader series which so far is only two books. It's probably why I never remembe what is going on from book to book, too many similar stories at the same time.
I agree that Jordan has too many characters. The last few books didn't even cover them all. He just picked half of them followed their story line and then picked up the next half in the next book. Way too much filler in his books.
I like both Goodkind and Brooks better than Jordan.
I haven't read them for a while but the advantage is the books are all out and no new ones are likely. Stephen Donaldson's White Gold Weilder series. This war the second fantasy set I read after Tolkien. The first few chapters of the first book are really slow but they improve dramtically after that.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
You cannot have freedom of religion and freedom from religion at the same time. They contradict each other and the Constitution clearly supports freedom of religion.
You are the one trying to misconstrue the Constitution into saying something it clearly does not.
You just don't get it, your demand of freedom from religion DOES impose on others, that is why there is NO freedom from religion. You do not have the right to not be offended in this country. You may not like what others do but you can't stop them from doing it if it infringes on their basic rights.
You have a fool's notion of logic. You try that silly sophmoric abuse of semantics and claim to have accomplished something. Your failure to grasp that freedom from and freedom of are logically equivalent bores me.
You claim that freedom from religion, chosen by by person A, impacts on person B. Just how does it do that since the only possible way is for person B and his religion to have some claim on the beliefs of person A? It is more than clear that nothing in the Constitution allows any person to control the beliefs or religion of another. If it impacts you that some person isn't following your religion or some religion, then something is wrong with you or your religion and it is you that needs correction, because the Constitution grants to them the right to believe as they wish with no influence from you, so long as they do not interfere with your freedom of religion (or some other right). Moreover, if your religious beliefs require you or it to impose your beliefs on another, THAT is strictly forbidden by the Copnstitution. AND NEITHER YOU NOR THEY MAY USE THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO OVERRIDE THAT RESTRICTION!
Your attempt at logic is a mite silly. I point out your own statements, "You do not have the right to not be offended in this country." and "You may not like what others do but you can't stop them from doing it if it infringes on their basic rights."
Notice that I never wanted or claimed any right to be offended or to not be offended. Notice also that the second of those statements is exactly what I have said over and over and over. THE RIGHTS OF A PERSON ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE WISHES OF ANOTHER, PROVIDED THE RIGHT IN QUESTION DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THOSE OF ANOTHER.
Accepting the truth of what I have said repeatedly and you have, until finally making that statement, declared to be not allowed by the Constitition; THUS, since, "You may not like what others do but you can't stop them from doing it if it infringes on their basic rights" is true and in accordance with the Constitution, should a person choose to practice freedom from religion, whice, by the Constitution he has the right to choose as his religion, and which, by definition cannot and does not impose on you, what possible provision of the Constitution gives you the the authority to impose your beliefs on him or to be offended at his choice?
Now, as to that blunt statement of yours, that " You do not have the right to not be offended in this country.", where on earth or in the name of god or in hell or where ever else did you come up with that absurdity? Each of us has the right to be offended by whatever we want to be offended by. However, the actions or inactions that we may take when offended are quite restricted. Once again, the Constitution does not allow us to act so as to infringe on the rights of others, however that may offend you.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Glassman...I have heard of it now that I think about it.
It is unfortunate that many think the way to encourage a person to make a decision for Christ is to appeal to their emotional side via "lights, sounds and other trappings". A decision to accept Christ should be one based upon the evidence that one believes points in that direction. The word says "Faith comes by Hearing and Hearing by the Word of God" A person really needs to study and understand God's Word to understand what his will is.
I am not saying that a person who made an emotional decision is not a Christian, however, after that decision...well...to make it short, Faith cannot be sustained indefinately upon emotions. A person must have an intelligent foundation on which to stand. Hence...Faith is a journey.
Posts: 43 | From: Midwest | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States.
Amendment I 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
Freedom from religion means you have the right to not see any other persons religion.
Obviously, never the intent of the Constitution.
Freedom of religion means you can practice your religion without government regulation. Note this is expressly stated:
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Your freedom from religion requires others to restrict their free exercise of.
They are incompatible and it takes very, very basic logic to see this.
You are correct, the Constitution does not allow us to act so as to infringe on the rights of other. You have the right to express your religion, you do not have the right to be free from others.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why any true Christian would even want Jesus in bed with this corrupt government, I'll never understand. Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States.
Amendment I 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
Freedom from religion means you have the right to not see any other persons religion.
Obviously, never the intent of the Constitution.
Freedom of religion means you can practice your religion without government regulation. Note this is expressly stated:
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Your freedom from religion requires others to restrict their free exercise of.
They are incompatible and it takes very, very basic logic to see this.
You are correct, the Constitution does not allow us to act so as to infringe on the rights of other. You have the right to express your religion, you do not have the right to be free from others.
"Freedom from religion means you have the right to not see any other persons religion." is the kind of contorted cock and bull statement made by those with intent to force religion on others.
Freedom from religion means you may not force me to participate in your religion or it's practices, in any way, by any means, and particularly by claiming the right to make me see or observe and respect it. The Constitutionif firm on that point when it declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....". Take the time to note that, from the dictionary:
establish es·tab·lish Audio pronunciation of "establish" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh) tr.v. es·tab·lished, es·tab·lish·ing, es·tab·lish·es
to establish is to cause to be recognized and accepted.
With the provision of the Constitutionm that no religion may be established, it thereby isn't a right of religion to be recognized and accepted. In other words, you have no use government or it's powers or facilities to display your religion.
"Freedom of religion means you can practice your religion without government regulation." is another wrtong minded mis-construction in order to attempt to use the power and facilities of the government to force your religion on others. There are multitudes of Court rulings pointing out that when the Constitutional rights of one conflicts with those of anothers, then those Constitutional rights cease to be applicable. There is no provision of the Constitution granting to you the right to "practice your religion without government regulation" when it restricts the rights of others. As the very fundamental right of free speach was described by the Supremem Court, "You do not have the right to yell "fire" in a crouded theater". You do not have absolute unrestricted freedom to speak whatever you wish and you do not have the right to "practice your religion without government regulation."
It isn't only my reasoning, it is the rule of the Supremem Court of the United States!
"Your freedom from religion requires others to restrict their free exercise of." is a self serving statement ignoring the repeated rulings of the Supremem Court that you do not have unrestricted freedom of religion and are restricted from forcing your religious practices on others.
I do indeed have the right to be free from your rligion, some other religion, or all religions that are not my own, And you need to study some actual history and read some real life Court rulings rather than spouting misrepresentations of the law. You may believe them, I don't question that. But your arguments have been tested and retested and found to be falacious many times over.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're wrong once again. This is getting repetitive and you have no basis for your arguement. Where is the word "from" in the first amendment? I see the word "of" numerous times. I also see "free exercise". not "free exercise where no one can see you".
Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States.
Amendment I 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
It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Just as it is freedom of speach, not freedom from speach. You can't stop someone from talking but you sure don't have to listen.
Glassman,
They don't talk politics at my church.
As for the church of satan, as 3 of their 11 "rules of the earth" are against the law, I don't think they will have much success in thier lawsuit.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
strider, i'm having a hard time trying to follow your train of thought on the distinctions you are trying to make about "from" .... can you elaborate a little more?
also? help me understnad why it's OK for a govt official to give tax dollars to whichever church he/she chooses out of a pile of grant applications?
we all have the right to swing our fist... until the other guys nose gets in the way....
i didn't read the satan website, i just pulled it as a case in point... satanism is real (as i learned when i was in the military) but i have no interest in it.... there are a LOT of religions... and Christianity itself covers hundreds of MAJOR sects and thousands of minor sects....
one of the things i've been steadily trying to point out to people about the mid-east is how badly the Moslem sects fight amongst one another themselves...everybody wants to JUST see Judaism versus Moslem versus Christianity when the worst problems we are seeing in Iraq right now appear to be amongst Moslem sects...they are trying to play it down a smuch as they can, but if you look at the situation from a strategic apoint of view instead of a tactical point of view? the "insurgency" is really about which sects will prevail...we stuck our hands in a hornets nest...
[ October 21, 2005, 08:17: Message edited by: glassman ]
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Constitution dictates what rights we as a people have, mostly in regards to the government.
We have freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition of the government for grievances.
These freedoms guarentee our right to practice these without government interferance. In that regards you could interprete it as freedom from government interferance because that is what it is.
What some, bdgee for instance, are trying to do is say this freedom from extends to the individual which it does not. As many religions require witnessing, public speaking, attempts to convert, etc, and the government cannot prevent this, no other individual is free "from" these people practicing their religion. They may freely express themselves. You at the receiving end are not required to stay and or listen, just as individuals are free to stand in the public square and speak. You are not required to stand there and listen.
The legislature has the power to determine who and what they give money to. That goes for any individual or organization. Simply because one group is religious in nature does not exclude that group from consideration. The granting of money does not "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". They are not making a law establishing a religion, nor are they prohibiting any other religion from exercising their rights.
The satan website was kind of interesting. Some of their rules of the earth make sense and could apply to any group. There are three however that are illegal. One advocates stealing, two others murder.
I understand what is going on in Iraq, it still doesn't change my opinion that we belong there. I do disagree with the way we are handling things, when politics dictate how military operations are run, it always leads to problems.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The legislature has the power to determine who and what they give money to. That goes for any individual or organization. Simply because one group is religious in nature does not exclude that group from consideration.
wow, you have a strange idea there.... the govt can give money to whoever they want?
this is where our system has rotted from the inside out...
elect me? i'll give you the taxpayers dollars...
sickening.... and most definitely NOT what i expect from a conservative... as a matter of fact? that is one tiny hairs breadth from communism....if it isn't (in fact) communism
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
You're wrong once again. This is getting repetitive and you have no basis for your arguement. Where is the word "from" in the first amendment? I see the word "of" numerous times. I also see "free exercise". not "free exercise where no one can see you".
Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States.
Amendment I 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
It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Just as it is freedom of speach, not freedom from speach. You can't stop someone from talking but you sure don't have to listen.
No, I am not wrong....not before and not once again.
Let's consider your the validity of your claim that the absence of the word "from" in the first amendment to the Constitution means that freedome from religion is not Constitutional. I have made careful study and found that the following are nowhere specifically used in the entirety of the Constitution: murder, football, abortion, bigamy, blimp, homosexual, theft, football, African American, airplane, rape. Of course, the list I have made is not exclusive. Take just one of them for example, such as African American. By your argument, since the term African American does not appear in the Constitution, the Constitution does not afford consideration of African Americans and whenever any suit comes before any Court concerning African Americans (or by an African American) or their rights, , that court is obliged to dismiss the suit, as the Constitution does not specifically use such a term. (Wonderful news!! Lets inform the KKK immediately! And think what wonderful news this will be to the right to lifers!)
Unlike you, I do not derive my reading and understanding of the Constitution and the law from far right wing propaganda or attempt to construe wished for Constitutional power to my religious beliefs so that, thereby, I obtain the right to dictate to persons not in accordance with my beliefs, how their rights exist only after mine and my religion's. I have read and reread the Constitution and can find no mention or even hint, therein, of any right of any kind being bestowed on any religion or religion in general. Also, unlike you, I do not approach any and all questions with disrespect of the questioner, intending to degrade them or offer intended insult to toward them.
As to your frequent claim of educational superiority and presenting of a resume of degrees and claims of accomplishment in the intellectual world, often accompanied by disdainful remarks about assumed defficiencies in others, I have only this in response. I do not and will not play "my resume is better than yours" with you or anyone else; however, I assure you, contrary to your statements and insults about my lack of education and accomplishments, mine is way way deeper, broader, and bigger than yours.
You refuse to educate yourself on the actual law and actual interpretations of the Constitution, prefering instead to attack those that are not so burdoned with stubborn adherance to dogma. Read the law instead of putting out rumor and propaganda. With effort and work, you may discover it is accessable, even to a biologist.
Do not again misquote me. Do not again offer your self important egotistical declaration of what you think are my beliefs, in any manner, on any subject. You have shown you are not open minded enough or informed enough to properly handle intellectual debate.
Have the courtesy to cease attempting to interpret me and what I did or didn't say or how I do or do not think. Do not address me again until you have matured intellectually.
Good day!
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wouldn't be surprized to learn that you already know this. There certainly are Supremem Court rulings that declare the religious "witnesses" and similar groups have the right to solicit your attention in public places but restrict their right to do so in many ways, Sadly, and I am assured by various misinformed (or maybe misinforming intentionally?) far right wing and extremist religious sources that that ruling stemmed from the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment of the Constitution. But that assurance is faulty nd leads often to misinterpretation and misrepresentations of the law.
The rulings in question comes not from consideration and respect of the "establishment clause" , but from precedents within labor law that reach back to the "...right of the people peaceably to assemble...". Actually, though I cannot recall the actual specific notation of the precedent case in that body of law, I can describe it.
The events took place in a (Gulf States Paper} "company town" in Holt Alabama, I believe in the late 20s or early 30s. It seems that the workers were considering a union and the company hired Pinkerton to stop the movement. One evening, on a street corner withing the "company town", a group of the workers was attacked and "broken up by Pinkerton Agents", who claim that, since all of the "company town" was deeded to the company, they had the right to determine who might be on the privately owned property and for what purpose or activity. I don't recall exactly the progress of it reaching the Supreme Court, but the ruling eventually declared that, even though privately owned, the street corner was, in effect, public, and the workers prevailed because of their rights to "peaceably assemble".
That ruling and the ruling from the "Pullman riots" nearby (Bessemer, Allabama)in that same time frame form the basis of modern "Labor Law" and are the precedents usually referred to in instances where the rights or privileges if religions effect persons not of that religion, NOT the "establishment clause". Indeed, it is the Gulf States decision that requires religious hawkers of religion to be restrained behind barriers so that they may not intrude on the freedom of other to pass them in airports.
The First Amendment cannot be construed so as to provide a means for one person or group to deny the rights of others, or as you point out, my right to swing a fist stops at your nose. Your right to a religious practice or ceremony stops when it forces me to observe it.
I don't have the right to punch you in the mouth, even if I only am intending to display my right to swing my fist, even if it was accdental that I smacked your jaw! In a parallel fashion you don't have the right to perform some religious thing, however innocent you may believe it to be, if it smacks into my religious rights, directly or indirectly, violently or otherwie......and then there are questions of rights I hold, from whatever source, other than religious ones.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
...nah...LOL
