So much for the constitution.....

[Maddhattter]

Prove it.

Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)

The lemon test that the Supreme Court uses also supports that post.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Come on folks, you know our four fathers never thought Americans would have to deal with Muslims and any other non-christian religion in the US. They just threw that in there to cover the christians freedom of religion.

It wasn't some arbitrary addition to the U.S. Constitution. Many were intimately aware of the problems experienced by the Puritan Movement in England, the roots of American Colonization. They considered official religious persecution, even between denominations of Christianity, as something to check.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

First Amendment. Which clearly the votes on this motto are in violation of.

Not necessarily. After all, who's "God" are we talking about here? Go ahead and point out where exactly, the official motto cites any one particular religion at all. Or gives any reference, implied or otherwise, to any kind of religion. I mean are we talking about the Christian "God"? Or is it more like Posiedon, "God" of the sea? Or perhaps they mean the ancient african "God" of creation, who was a giant crocodile? Or maybe its the seemingly emerging "God" in the scientific community, which is thought to be the universe itself.

Calling out a simple saying only serves to make you look like you harbor religious bigotry.

[The King]

Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)

The lemon test that the Supreme Court uses also supports that post.

Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) shows that the government shall not endorse the practices of any particular religion when in conflict with secular law. Thank you for backing up my post.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947) I don't really see why you included this in support of your arguments.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) reiterates again that government support behind a particular religion is prohibited. Thank you again for backing up my post, but I really didn't need your help in doing so.

Epperson v. Arkansas 1968 merely supports the teaching of evolutionary theory without fear of prosecution by those teaching same. So what?

Your Google skills are obviously not the stuff of legend.

[46Tbird]

Government is allowed to support religion.

Government is not allowed to establish and/or require "A" religion.

This is clearly the intent of the framers of the Constitution. I'm sorry if you don't get it, but this is not only true, it has been reaffirmed twice. I'm sure there will be some BS reply to this post but I don't see any need to explain it further.

[Maddhattter]

Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) shows that the government shall not endorse the practices of any particular religion when in conflict with secular law. Thank you for backing up my post.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947) I don't really see why you included this in support of your arguments.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) reiterates again that government support behind a particular religion is prohibited. Thank you again for backing up my post, but I really didn't need your help in doing so.

Epperson v. Arkansas 1968 merely supports the teaching of evolutionary theory without fear of prosecution by those teaching same. So what?

Your Google skills are obviously not the stuff of legend.

You've obviously not actually read the cases. If you can't bother to check sources when you ask for them, there is no reason to continue discussions.

Reynolds v. U.S. (1878): The courts rule that Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" is the accurate way to describe the religious freedoms granted by the first amendment, as "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

Everson v. Board of Education (1947): This is the first instance in which the Establishment clause was applied to the state level and further explains that both sides of the argument felt "explicitly stated that the Constitution has erected a "wall between church and state" or a "separation of Church from State""

Engel v. Vitale (1962): No where does this limit it's scope to "government support behind a particular religion". It clearly keeps ambiguous terms and even covers the "God can mean any god" argument.

It determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation.

Epperson v. Arkansas 1968: Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them."

And the lemon test that the Supreme Court uses to determine Establishment Clause violations was not even touched on in your retort. Are you conceding that point?

So, when proper research is done, none of these cases support your argument, and all are relevant.

It would seem that it is your research skills that are obviously not the stuff of legend.

[jasonw_2005]

That's it dammit I solve this my damn self (grabs shovel) I'll dig up jefferson and ask him.

[Maddhattter]

That's it dammit I solve this my damn self (grabs shovel) I'll dig up jefferson and ask him.

Can you also ask him to fork over the $20 he owes me? With interest, please.

[mustangguy289]

That's it dammit I solve this my damn self (grabs shovel) I'll dig up jefferson and ask him.

Can you prove he is there?

[jasonw_2005]

Can you also ask him to fork over the $20 he owes me? With interest, please.

Sure, but u owe me a beer.

[Maddhattter]

Sure, but u owe me a beer.

If you can get the stingy bastard to pay the interest owed as well, I'll buy you a case of beer with the money.

[The King]

You've obviously not actually read the cases. If you can't bother to check sources when you ask for them, there is no reason to continue discussions.

Reynolds v. U.S. (1878): The courts rule that Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" is the accurate way to describe the religious freedoms granted by the first amendment, as "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

Everson v. Board of Education (1947): This is the first instance in which the Establishment clause was applied to the state level and further explains that both sides of the argument felt "explicitly stated that the Constitution has erected a "wall between church and state" or a "separation of Church from State""

Engel v. Vitale (1962): No where does this limit it's scope to "government support behind a particular religion". It clearly keeps ambiguous terms and even covers the "God can mean any god" argument.

It determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation.

Epperson v. Arkansas 1968: Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them."

And the lemon test that the Supreme Court uses to determine Establishment Clause violations was not even touched on in your retort. Are you conceding that point?

So, when proper research is done, none of these cases support your argument, and all are relevant.

It would seem that it is your research skills that are obviously not the stuff of legend.

Just as you have tried, in vain, to interject your opinions as being equal to what the words in the First Amendment actually say, you are trying interject your opinions (again in vain) as being what the decisions actually meant in the various court cases you offered up as "proof" of your argument. At least you went to the trouble to copy and paste snippets of what others wrote about those decisions this time, so if any readers of this thread choose to research further and comment that will be fine.

Obviously your grasp of how low your own opinions rank when compared to the actual meaning of important documents is most certainly not the stuff of legend.

[Maddhattter]

Just as you have tried, in vain, to interject your opinions as being equal to what the words in the First Amendment actually say, you are trying interject your opinions (again in vain) as being what the decisions actually meant in the various court cases you offered up as "proof" of your argument. At least you went to the trouble to copy and paste snippets of what others wrote about those decisions this time, so if any readers of this thread choose to research further and comment that will be fine.

Obviously your grasp of how low your own opinions rank when compared to the actual meaning of important documents is most certainly not the stuff of legend.

Again, you demonstrate that you did not bother to fact check as the quotes are almost all from the judges explaining why they ruled the way they did.

As you've twice not bothered to check the sources that you requested. I'm done with this discussion.

[The King]

Again, you demonstrate that you did not bother to fact check as the quote are almost all from the judges explaining why they ruled the way they did.

Au contraire

[bcoop]

Atheists are just as bad as the Android crowd, shouting from the rooftops, doing their best to shove their nonsense down your throat. A big part of the very problem they have with Christians or believers.

From the sidelines, this is hilarious. MaddHatter must be a run off/banned retread.