Tweet
Originally posted by bcoop
View Post
And Maddhattter isn't an alias for any other member.
-
The constitution is nonsense? Ok....
And Maddhattter isn't an alias for any other member. -
Show me where I said the Constitution is nonsense. I'll wait. By nonsense, I mean agenda. Atheists are every bit as hypocritical as believers, and it's hilarious.Originally posted by racrguy View Post
I interpret it the same way as most others in this thread have, as have millions of people throughout history. They are not singling out any specific religion.
And really, I mean, how is the motto, and what's printed on our currency affecting you? I don't believe in God either. But I'm not crying about something that has absolutely no affect on me, either.
There was a Maddhatter on the old board, and he was run off due to his dumbassery. I can't remember the specifics.Originally posted by BradMOriginally posted by LeahComment
-
He wasn't run off. You and I normally agree on things, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the constitutionality of this motto, and that you think Maddhattter was run off the old boards. You can search his username over there. They don't have to single out religion to be against the constitution, the mere fact that they're acknowledging it is what violates the constitution, and that's not even touching on the tax breaks. Where the government gets to decide what's a religion and what's not.Originally posted by bcoop View PostComment
-
You've got four fathers?Originally posted by mstng86 View Post
They must belong to a trippy religion to want to make sure it was covered.Comment
-
-
Amen.Originally posted by Torinoman View Postoh sweet baby Jesus....
class joke
{
private:
char Forrest, Jenny, Momma, LtDan;
double Peas, Carrots;
string MommaAlwaysSaid(const bool AddAnyTime = True)
};Comment
-
-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."Originally posted by mustangguy289 View Post
I am not sure which "religious establishment" was respected. God is not a religion.
class joke
{
private:
char Forrest, Jenny, Momma, LtDan;
double Peas, Carrots;
string MommaAlwaysSaid(const bool AddAnyTime = True)
};Comment
-
BLACK, J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
370 U.S. 421
Engel v. Vitale
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 468 Argued: April 3, 1962 --- Decided: June 25, 1962
"There can be no doubt that New York's state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regents' prayer. The respondents' argument to the contrary, which is largely based upon the contention that the Regents' prayer is "nondenominational" and the fact that the program, as modified and approved by state courts, does not require all pupils to recite the prayer, but permits those who wish to do so to remain silent or be excused from the room, ignores the essential nature of the program's constitutional defects. Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although these two clauses may, in certain instances, overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that [p431] laws officially prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. [n13] That same history showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith. [n14] The Establishment Clause [p432] thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate. [n15] Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand. [n16] The Founders knew that, only a few years after the Book of Common Prayer became the only accepted form of religious services in the established Church of England, an Act of Uniformity was passed to compel all Englishmen to attend those services and to make it a criminal offense to conduct or attend religious gatherings of any other kind [n17] -- a law [p433] which was consistently flouted by dissenting religious groups in England and which contributed to widespread persecutions of people like John Bunyan who persisted in holding "unlawful [religious] meetings . . . to the great disturbance and distraction of the good subjects of this kingdom. . . ." [n18] And they knew that similar persecutions had received the sanction of law in several of the colonies in this country soon after the establishment of official religions in those colonies. [n19] It was in large part to get completely away from this sort of systematic religious persecution that the Founders brought into being our Nation, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights, with its prohibition against any governmental establishment of religion. The New York laws officially prescribing the Regents' prayer are inconsistent both with the purposes of the Establishment Clause and with the Establishment Clause itself."Originally posted by racrguyOriginally posted by racrguyComment
-
It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an [p434] establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong. The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. And perhaps it is not too much to say that, since the beginning of that history, many people have devoutly believed that "More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of." It was doubtless largely due to men who believed this that there grew up a sentiment that caused men to leave the cross-currents of officially established state religions and religious persecution in Europe and come to this country filled with the hope that they could find a place in which they could pray when they pleased to the God of their faith in the language they chose. [n20] And there were men of this same faith in the [p435] power of prayer who led the fight for adoption of our Constitution and also for our Bill of Rights with the very guarantees of religious freedom that forbid the sort of governmental activity which New York has attempted here. These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried to put an end to governmental control of religion and of prayer, was not written to destroy either. They knew, rather, that it was written to quiet well justified fears which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the past had shackled men's tongues to make them speak only the religious thoughts that government wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray to. It is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance. [n21] [p436]
It is true that New York's establishment of its Regents' prayer as an officially approved religious doctrine of that State does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others -- that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago. To those who may subscribe to the view that, because the Regents' official prayer is so brief and general there can be no danger to religious freedom in its governmental establishment, however, it may be appropriate to say in the words of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:
"[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? [n22]"
The judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.Originally posted by racrguyOriginally posted by racrguyComment
-
Thanks Bronco for the above....
If we Christians want to reverse the opinion(s) of the court, I suggest we get crackin at some conservative presidencies....
Can we all move along now?
Removing "In God We Trust" off of money and changing mottos does not effect my rights as a Christian to worship the "Almighty Spaghetti Monster" (as a certain atheist friend puts it) as I see fit.
Honestly, if it puts an end to some of the incredible barrage of temper tantrums and hate that some atheists have for religion in general (Christianity Specifically), its probably worth it....
He thinks I'm an idiot and I think he's blind to the Cosmos around him... it is what it is.... I guess we all find out who's right in the end...
..................
Comment
-
I'm glad that someone else understands that it protects religion when you isolate it from government. I am amazed that some people would trust our government to promote religious ideas. I wouldn't trust them to do jack shit and there are a lot of things they need to just stay out of. If you don't believe me then go to the Cornell law website and read more of the opinion I posted, it gives more detail about how the Church of England was a politicized dog and pony show and anyone who varied their beliefs from the politically agreed upon doctrine was an outlaw.Originally posted by racrguyOriginally posted by racrguyComment
-
A freakin atheist that actually considered what the word atheist means. I didn't think they existed. So I have to agree with your whole post.Originally posted by bcoop View Post
Its like those crying little pussies who don't want to see christmas stuff slathered across the inside of wal-mart. Just because they don't celebrate christmas. For fucks sake, other people do. They act like when they go in there, they're forced to sit there and stare at all the decor for 10 minutes first, and sing joy to the world the whole time. Anything else yall want to cry about? I hear there are some hungry people in the world. Cry about that.
Well you really can't say that either. For that to be true, they'd have to never even mention the topic of religion, at all. Even to say that there should be separation of church and state.Originally posted by racrguy View PostComment
-
The Congress hasn't endorsed or enforced a religion. Perfectly within the Constitutional bounds.Originally posted by racrguy View PostI wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
Comment