Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 151 to 176 of 176

Thread: Lord and Saviour ?

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    i think the entire intellectual and philosophical community would be interested in your proof of a god, as it has so far eluded humanity since the dawn of time
    Actually not. Either you totally ignore those things that are convenient to you or your knowledge is really that shallow. I'm beginning to think your knowledge is that shallow and you simply are not capable of forming your own arguments - hence your failure to form cogent arguments when called on. As addressed before all your supposed "reasoning" to defend your statement that all religion was evil all had the logical fallacy of begging the question

    Your statment that it has not been done ignores Aristotles prime mover argument.

    It ignores all five of Thomas Aquinas's logical proofs.

    It ignores countless others as well

    This is why noone takes you seriously. You make these broad sweeping statements and claim to know all of human philosophy and intellect and the entirety of the intellectual and philosophical communities. Truth be told you build card stacking arguments to advance your conclusion without ever giving any hint that there are strong arguments against it. You lack intellectual honesty. You can take that however you want - its a statement of fact. You come across as arrogant by trying to claim some intellectual superiority where you seem to lack it to such a degreee to render your judgements of others in these conversations moot

    Morbid curiousity is giving way. Serious discussion will have to continue without you as you simply hinder it.
    "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not" - Dr Suess

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    Actually not. Either you totally ignore those things that are convenient to you or your knowledge is really that shallow. I'm beginning to think your knowledge is that shallow and you simply are not capable of forming your own arguments - hence your failure to form cogent arguments when called on. As addressed before all your supposed "reasoning" to defend your statement that all religion was evil all had the logical fallacy of begging the question

    Your statment that it has not been done ignores Aristotles prime mover argument.

    It ignores all five of Thomas Aquinas's logical proofs.

    It ignores countless others as well

    This is why noone takes you seriously. You make these broad sweeping statements and claim to know all of human philosophy and intellect and the entirety of the intellectual and philosophical communities. Truth be told you build card stacking arguments to advance your conclusion without ever giving any hint that there are strong arguments against it. You lack intellectual honesty. You can take that however you want - its a statement of fact. You come across as arrogant by trying to claim some intellectual superiority where you seem to lack it to such a degreee to render your judgements of others in these conversations moot

    Morbid curiousity is giving way. Serious discussion will have to continue without you as you simply hinder it.
    prime mover has been debunked in a myriad different ways. not only is there the cause and effect problem, there is the fundamental assumption problem. and Aquinas is just another apologist, and his arguments all stem from that position. again, his arguments have had there logical fallacies shown for more then 200 years in published works. and really, the first 3 of his 5, are just the first mover argument re-worked.

    way to keep current on philosophy and logic!

    so go ahead, reason your way to a god. humanity is waiting.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    You determine what arguments you like by their conclusion. Those that agree with you are logical and rational. Those that do not are "the evil rage machine" and irrational. As I said you lack any shred of intellectual honesty. I'm done. You may continue an argument of verbosity all you want.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    You determine what arguments you like by their conclusion. Those that agree with you are logical and rational. Those that do not are "the evil rage machine" and irrational. As I said you lack any shred of intellectual honesty. I'm done. You may continue an argument of verbosity all you want.
    no, i use logic and reasoning, you googled "proofs of god" without knowing anything about them when i called you on your bluff that you could reason your way to a god.

    i mean really, you tried to cite the first mover argument ... like really? most children can figure out where that one gets into trouble, you cannot violate your first assumption in your conclusion of a logical proof.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Right. Because you know exaclty how it works. I was actually familiar with the first mover argument and the argument of scale. I stumbled across the rest of Aquinas arguments trying to come up with the name of the first mover argument (original motion is what I recalled it as)

    Your supposed intellectual superiority exists only in your mind. The rest of us know better.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    Right. Because you know exaclty how it works. I was actually familiar with the first mover argument and the argument of scale. I stumbled across the rest of Aquinas arguments trying to come up with the name of the first mover argument (original motion is what I recalled it as)

    Your supposed intellectual superiority exists only in your mind. The rest of us know better.
    so then why don't you try to patch the holes up in your proofs if you are so intellectually superior?

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Others: if CP says anything useful let me know. I won't see it at this point as I have found I lack the will power to simply end this conversation.

    In the end atheism is a faith. It is due the respect of other faiths. It can be arrived at through a series of considerations and a logical choice. However doing so requires thought and consideration not simply the repeating of others words.

    The proofs I referenced are old proofs and are generally negatively received in atheistic circles. They are attacked and are generally argued to have flaws in make-up though you have to want to beleive the logic behind those flaws to believe them. Like it or not logical thought alone does not prove the existence of God.

    However it has not now, nor will it as far as I can see, ever disprove the existence of God. The thing is it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. For instance prove we are not all just brains tied up to a complex machine that feeds us elecrical impulse as depicted in movies like the matrix. Prove we are not some ants in some great alien ant farm. The point is these proofs do not exist. We take it on faith that the world as we know it exists. There is no logical proof that God does not exist.

    Atheism, in the end and rather ironically, must be taken with an amount of faith. So must the belief in God, gods, or some other entity. I have great respect for those who have come to the conclusion themselves and understand that it still requires faith. For those who would simply tear down without understanding the limits of their own knowledge I have very little respect. As conversations on sensitive subjects cannot exist without some medium of respect I have chosen to ignore CP.

    I regret how badly this conversation has gone and the argument of verbosity that has ensued. Perhaps we are not ale to have discussions of this nature on the board. Maybe those who made rules accordingly before now do know better than I do
    Last edited by Lohman446; 12-14-2012 at 06:46 AM.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Waiting on Key Lime Pie !
    Posts
    4,484

    The End Of The Matter

    PSALMS 14:1
    The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,146
    You really want to start quoting stuff out of the bible?

    The bible also states tattoos are a sin.
    Leviticus 19:28

    Women should cover their heads.
    Corinthians 11:6

    And cutting your hair is also bad
    Leviticus 19:27

    I guess we're all going to hell

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Ando
    You really want to start quoting stuff out of the bible?

    The bible also states tattoos are a sin.
    Leviticus 19:28

    Women should cover their heads.
    Corinthians 11:6

    And cutting your hair is also bad
    Leviticus 19:27

    I guess we're all going to hell
    There is an argument that Christ's command replaced the entirety of the Mosaic law. Its an interesting discussion.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    Others: if CP says anything useful let me know. I won't see it at this point as I have found I lack the will power to simply end this conversation.

    In the end atheism is a faith. It is due the respect of other faiths. It can be arrived at through a series of considerations and a logical choice. However doing so requires thought and consideration not simply the repeating of others words.

    The proofs I referenced are old proofs and are generally negatively received in atheistic circles. They are attacked and are generally argued to have flaws in make-up though you have to want to beleive the logic behind those flaws to believe them. Like it or not logical thought alone does not prove the existence of God.

    However it has not now, nor will it as far as I can see, ever disprove the existence of God. The thing is it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. For instance prove we are not all just brains tied up to a complex machine that feeds us elecrical impulse as depicted in movies like the matrix. Prove we are not some ants in some great alien ant farm. The point is these proofs do not exist. We take it on faith that the world as we know it exists. There is no logical proof that God does not exist.

    Atheism, in the end and rather ironically, must be taken with an amount of faith. So must the belief in God, gods, or some other entity. I have great respect for those who have come to the conclusion themselves and understand that it still requires faith. For those who would simply tear down without understanding the limits of their own knowledge I have very little respect. As conversations on sensitive subjects cannot exist without some medium of respect I have chosen to ignore CP.

    I regret how badly this conversation has gone and the argument of verbosity that has ensued. Perhaps we are not ale to have discussions of this nature on the board. Maybe those who made rules accordingly before now do know better than I do

    i am happy to see you now openly admitting that you cannot reason your way to a god, like you falsely claimed before.

    atheism requires no faith. does not believing in unicorns require faith on your part? does not believing in all those other gods that other people believe in require faith on your part? atheism equally does not claim to disprove god. nothing can ever be disproven, without an associated positive claim proven true, so god will never and can never be disproven. i never have claimed to disprove god. the person with the burden of proof is the one making the positive claim, the claim that god or unicorns or whatever, exists.

    there has been no disrespect from me on this topic at any point.

    Quote Originally Posted by going_home
    PSALMS 14:1
    The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.
    indeed, quoting a book i do not consider authoritative will really change my mind

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    There is an argument that Christ's command replaced the entirety of the Mosaic law. Its an interesting discussion.
    So the 10 commandments are out the window? What of the commands to Noah and Abraham?

    If I remember my bible studies in church. I'm pretty sure (100%) Christ followed Mosaic Law? Was his fathers teachings too old school for him?

    I sat through a sermon about a month ago when I went to church in my wives home town. The preacher actually talked about this very same thing and went on to quote...

    God gives law to humans living in every age. He gave commands to the first humans living in the sinless environment of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 1:26-30; 2:15-17). He gave commands to Noah (Gen. 6-9). He gave commands to Abraham (Gen. 12:1; 17:10-14). He gave commands to the Israelites—known as the Mosaic Law—after delivering them from their bondage in Egypt (Ex. 20 - Deut. 34). He has given commands to Christians (Rom. 1-Rev. 3). These biblical distinctions are important, for though all Scripture is written for the benefit of the Christian, only some portions of it speak specifically to him and command his walk with the Lord. Just as the Christian would not try to obey the commands God gave to Adam in Genesis 1-2, or the commands God gave to Noah in Genesis 6-9, so he should not try to obey the commands God gave to Israel in Exodus through Deuteronomy. Romans chapter 1 through Revelation chapter 3 marks the specific body of Scripture that directs the Christian life both regarding specific commands and divine principles.
    ...so, depending on the times, the church in a nutshell rewrites and teaches on to it's flock what it now wants people to believe.

    I think a new chapter is well over due for our time you think
    Last edited by Ando; 12-14-2012 at 01:12 PM.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    if gods laws changed in the bible, then how are they a solid basis for morality now? how do we know they haven't changed again?

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Waiting on Key Lime Pie !
    Posts
    4,484

    The Last Word

    Quote Originally Posted by Ando
    You really want to start quoting stuff out of the bible?

    The bible also states tattoos are a sin.
    Leviticus 19:28

    Women should cover their heads.
    Corinthians 11:6

    And cutting your hair is also bad
    Leviticus 19:27

    I guess we're all going to hell
    There is a group of people that live the Word today.
    The women never cut their hair, they dont wear mens garments (pants).
    The men look like men, they keep groomed with short hair, and dont wear shorts.
    You probably see some of these Believers once in a while in the grocery store.
    They follow the Word, and they know that in itself brings ridicule.


    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    if gods laws changed in the bible, then how are they a solid basis for morality now? how do we know they haven't changed again?
    The laws were magnified by Jesus, not nullified.
    The law said , dont commit adultery.
    Jesus said, if you look on a woman with lust, you will be judged for committing adultery.

    But your questions were dishonest, in that you really dont care what the answers are, only that you can ridicule more.
    People believe what they have faith to believe in.
    Ridiculers will ridicule no matter what.


    MATTHEW 7:6
    Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Ando
    If I remember my bible studies in church. I'm pretty sure (100%) Christ followed Mosaic Law? Was his fathers teachings too old school for him?:
    Christ was a faith healer - actually a pretty common profession of the time. He healed on the Sabbath and his followers picked grain from the fields to eat, also on the Sabbath and against the law as they were held by the scribes and the pharisees of the time as Mosaic law.

    Which of the commandments of God are you able to break while following Christ's command to love your neighbor as yourself? Maybe ones regarding God but remember Christ was talking to the Jewish people at the time.

    Christ illustrated through his life that following of the law alone was not the path to joining God. His main issue with religion seemed to be, to me at least, that the teachers had complicated it and made it about things other than a relationship with God - be it tithing, number of steps on the Sabbath, whatever.

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    our argument is not with the ten commandments or or crosses. you can display those on your private property all you want. the issue is when government supports and endorses religion. this is unconstitutional. for claiming to want liberals and atheists to read the constitution, you should try reading amendment number 1. the state cannot endorse religion. that means no ten commandments in front of courthouses, no public schools leading prayers, etc etc etc

    when Muslims are trying to put there religious laws and symbols on our books, we will protest them just as hard as when you do it. i am for example, very very much against anti-anti-muslim laws, i have personally been a participant in both draw Muhammad days for example.

    all religion is about control, all religion is evil at its core. the only way to be free, is to be free from religion.

    This thread is dead but I read something that irks me to no end and I thought I should share it for those who care (and those who don't might learn something):

    Pick up the constitution, the 1st Amendment in clear, unambiguous language states that "Congress" (the legislative body that sits in the big domed building and does nothing but screw things up for our country) shall make no law respecting religion. The Supreme Court, in extending the the phrase to cover all branches of government (both federal and state) shows once again how it is right only because it is final. Why don't you tread the constitution before urging others to do so? You're "reading" of the constitution is grossly inaccurate: you're simply parroting the Supreme Court's faulty interpretation of a plainly worded statute. Furthermore, the first amendment says nothing of the states advancing or inhibiting religion, it applies to the federal government. The Supreme Court, through the application of the 14th Amendment, which was written so as to apply to the states, through what they call the incorporation doctrine has applied the 1st Amendment to the states.

    There is a big difference between what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court says it means.

    Oh the irony, you can't display anything religious anymore on public property (which isn't a legislative act in any ordinary sense or meaning of the phrase) but you can certainly pass laws or render judgment against said displays.

    The excessive government entanglement or advance/inhibit Lemon test nonsense is exactly that: if people are bright, then why do they need the law to protect them from religion? I guess we need to protect the stupid people from their own ignorance.

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,146
    Someone stone him.

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by debruynda View Post
    This thread is dead but I read something that irks me to no end and I thought I should share it for those who care (and those who don't might learn something):

    Pick up the constitution, the 1st Amendment in clear, unambiguous language states that "Congress" (the legislative body that sits in the big domed building and does nothing but screw things up for our country) shall make no law respecting religion. The Supreme Court, in extending the the phrase to cover all branches of government (both federal and state) shows once again how it is right only because it is final. Why don't you tread the constitution before urging others to do so? You're "reading" of the constitution is grossly inaccurate: you're simply parroting the Supreme Court's faulty interpretation of a plainly worded statute. Furthermore, the first amendment says nothing of the states advancing or inhibiting religion, it applies to the federal government. The Supreme Court, through the application of the 14th Amendment, which was written so as to apply to the states, through what they call the incorporation doctrine has applied the 1st Amendment to the states.

    There is a big difference between what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court says it means.

    Oh the irony, you can't display anything religious anymore on public property (which isn't a legislative act in any ordinary sense or meaning of the phrase) but you can certainly pass laws or render judgment against said displays.

    The excessive government entanglement or advance/inhibit Lemon test nonsense is exactly that: if people are bright, then why do they need the law to protect them from religion? I guess we need to protect the stupid people from their own ignorance.
    since congress also is the only body that can make laws ....

    so you also believe that that executive branch can do whatever they want in regards to religion? so you would be perfectly fine if for example, a muslim was president, and he/she decided that zero dollars would go to christian charities, just to muslim ones? you would defend that equally as constitutional under your bizarre interpretation? on the same foot, would you like to go to your courthouse, and see nothing about muslim religious symbols? would you feel that justice would be served properly to non-mulsims in a place like this?
    loose cars and fast women

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Posts
    299
    Congress isn't the only body that can make laws; state legislatures can too as can administrative agencies (both federal and state) when such power is delegated. So, since the constitution was written as a document that was intended to define the powers of the federal government, and not the states, it stands to reason why the 1st amendment would be narrowly tailored to apply only to Congress, since they are the only federal branch with legislative authority (notwithstanding the aforementioned exceptions). You said states in your original post, which is patently wrong.

    Since when is it bizarre to read something and interpret it by it's plain language?

    Your arguments about Islam seem to be well intended but not relevant to a reading of the constitution. But I see what you are getting at: you are making the assumption that there is some religion that if it saturated the culture I live in and would thereby be forced to deal with daily that I would be offended by and then raise the same objection you have. Personally I don't care for religion. But I don't shroud that belief through a faulty reading of the constitution, nor do I get offended by someone elses religious beliefs, however wrong I might feel them to be.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by debruynda View Post
    Congress isn't the only body that can make laws; state legislatures can too as can administrative agencies (both federal and state) when such power is delegated. So, since the constitution was written as a document that was intended to define the powers of the federal government, and not the states, it stands to reason why the 1st amendment would be narrowly tailored to apply only to Congress, since they are the only federal branch with legislative authority (notwithstanding the aforementioned exceptions). You said states in your original post, which is patently wrong.

    Since when is it bizarre to read something and interpret it by it's plain language?

    Your arguments about Islam seem to be well intended but not relevant to a reading of the constitution. But I see what you are getting at: you are making the assumption that there is some religion that if it saturated the culture I live in and would thereby be forced to deal with daily that I would be offended by and then raise the same objection you have. Personally I don't care for religion. But I don't shroud that belief through a faulty reading of the constitution, nor do I get offended by someone elses religious beliefs, however wrong I might feel them to be.
    that would be the state congresses and legislative bodies ... the ones that also have to follow the Constitution, cause you know, they have to follow it too ...

    so let me get that clear from you: you would be perfectly fine, in every possible way, if our justice system was covered in islamic symbols, if you had to swear on the koran, if the pillars of islam were in front of every courthouse, if the crescent was over every government building, and if discretionary executive spending, and enforcement of the law was in favor of islam? you would be fine with public schools pledging and praying to allah?

    you would be fine with that, and believe that is constitutionally correct in our country?

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    even better yet ... toss out islam .... what about Scientology? or ANY other evidence-less religion?

    you would defend to constitutionality of the judicial and executive branches doing all of the above things, in support of Scientology? after all, congress didn't make a law about it .....

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Posts
    299
    Every argument you make does not need to be absurd, but it sure appears that way. What do religions lacking evidence have to do with any of what I have just outlined?

    Again, you're not addressing my point, you're simply injecting absurd hypotheticals to try and undercut it. For the last time, I'm not talking about quasi legislative actions by the judicial and executive branches...the functions of these branches do not include the promulgation of laws respecting religion (remember, the province and application of the 1st Amendment is the textual argument you tried and failed to make, and that I called you out on).

    Recall during Obama's coronation when Rick Warren delivered the invocation and mentioned God? That was an executive function, in front of Congress, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Was that an endorsement of religion? Was that a "law" that advanced religion? It most certainly was a religiously symbolic gesture...similar but not identical to the religious displays you mention in your previous post you find to be violative of the First Amendment (but more relevant since it is clearly federal action and not state action). See, it's easy to conflate neutral actions by other branches of government with official legislative acts as violative of the 1st Amendment. But that fails to address my point.

    There is a distinct difference between what the Constitution says and what you are saying it means. You are definitely entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by debruynda View Post
    Every argument you make does not need to be absurd, but it sure appears that way. What do religions lacking evidence have to do with any of what I have just outlined?

    Again, you're not addressing my point, you're simply injecting absurd hypotheticals to try and undercut it. For the last time, I'm not talking about quasi legislative actions by the judicial and executive branches...the functions of these branches do not include the promulgation of laws respecting religion (remember, the province and application of the 1st Amendment is the textual argument you tried and failed to make, and that I called you out on).

    Recall during Obama's coronation when Rick Warren delivered the invocation and mentioned God? That was an executive function, in front of Congress, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Was that an endorsement of religion? Was that a "law" that advanced religion? It most certainly was a religiously symbolic gesture...similar but not identical to the religious displays you mention in your previous post you find to be violative of the First Amendment (but more relevant since it is clearly federal action and not state action). See, it's easy to conflate neutral actions by other branches of government with official legislative acts as violative of the 1st Amendment. But that fails to address my point.

    There is a distinct difference between what the Constitution says and what you are saying it means. You are definitely entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
    the argument isn't absurd at all. are there not people of different faiths here in the USA? could they not be elected in future?

    without evidence, one cannot determine the correct religion, ergo you are totally fine with massive amount of public resources being dedicated based only on the whim of those in our executive branch. there is just as much evidence for thor, as allah, as yahweh. just because you think some of these are more rational then others, doesn't make that true. they are all based on the same lack of evidence. and you are fine with that lack of evidence to justify all sorts of societal government expenditures and enforcements. i am not.

    the issue is so called "quasi legislative actions" are real, whether you are agree with them or not .... so we have to deal with them. and according to your own interpretation of the issue, since its not congress making a law, then its a-ok by you.

    obama was not coronated. he was inaugurated. the fact that you even used that word, reveals quite a lot about your position in this thread.

    and yes, the invocation of god in that is an endorsement of religion, and yes, it is unconstitutional. as is in god we trust on our money, under god in the pledge etc etc etc. most of those were added in the 1950s in an attempt to separate us from those ungodly communists!

    the only one confused about facts is you dear sir.

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Posts
    299
    You still don't get it.

    Congress makes laws, laws that appropriate money. The executive and the judicial branch don't make laws that distribute money. The president, through the office of money and banking, submits his budget to congress. Congress through the allocation process determines where and how much it goes so any monies earmarked or resources earmarked for the advancement of religion would have to be approved by congress. That is the strongest argument for you to make for the application of the 1st Amendment. Congress also has the sole power to print and coin money too, it's one of their enumerated powers. So you are justified in you claim that the logos on the money may constitute excessive entanglement by Congress.

    See how this all applies to Congress, and not the other branches?

    What does the term coronation have to do with anything?

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Posts
    299
    And to you point about what functions are okay with me: that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion of what is constitutional.

  26. #176
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by debruynda View Post
    You still don't get it.

    Congress makes laws, laws that appropriate money. The executive and the judicial branch don't make laws that distribute money. The president, through the office of money and banking, submits his budget to congress. Congress through the allocation process determines where and how much it goes so any monies earmarked or resources earmarked for the advancement of religion would have to be approved by congress. That is the strongest argument for you to make for the application of the 1st Amendment. Congress also has the sole power to print and coin money too, it's one of their enumerated powers. So you are justified in you claim that the logos on the money may constitute excessive entanglement by Congress.

    See how this all applies to Congress, and not the other branches?

    What does the term coronation have to do with anything?
    actually, every budget passed does have executive discretionary spending in it. also, spending on architecture, art, etc etc etc is discretionary, ergo, the other branches of government are always going to be involved. not only that, but again, like say pentagon spending, such and such money is designated to the pentagon as discretionary, because obviously congress doesn't want to get bogged down in the minutia of voting on every single weapons program budget ... but that money could be spent on say "upgrading" every tank to have a cross on it or something, idk, it could be anything. this kind of crap happens all the time ... who do you think decides on the architecture of a renovation of a small town courthouse in rural iowa? not the US congress ... doesn't mean that the building gets to break the first amendment.

    FFRF sued the bush administration over his insistence to fund christian charities with such money.

    so we can argue that maybe that shouldn't be the case, that congress should have to explicitly state which and what charities get funded, but that doesn't do anything but shift the argument.

    the simple fact is, all branches need to follow the first amendment.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-26-2013 at 03:18 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •