Lord and Saviour ?

[debruynda]

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.

[Ando]

Someone stone him.

[cockerpunk]

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?

[debruynda]

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.

[cockerpunk]

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?

[cockerpunk]

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 .....

[debruynda]

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.

[cockerpunk]

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.