So much for the constitution.....

[Denny]

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.

It's not isolating it by removing what is already there at the cries of the heathens. I see we're in a bit of a conundrum...


I don't know why we're even having this conversation. Maddhattter said it has all been covered already. LOL

[jdgregory84]

Who gives a flying fuck?

racrguy, I'm pretty sure that we've covered this before. Let's say you see an old lady with a flat tire on the side of the road and you change her tire for her...if she says "God bless you." Are you gonna be a dickhole and start talking shit to her because of that? If so...you're a fucking idiot.

[Denny]

Don't sneeze near him!

[ceyko]

1. How many years we've been rolling with in God we trust?
2. What's it going to fix to remove it from everything?

I think it'll cost more money to do so. This is more whining over things that have little relevancy to significant problems. Similar to a cop seeing a murder in progress and deciding to just give a speeding ticket some other random motorist. Maybe on SOME level that's more important, but really should be taking care of the murder.

[racrguy]

You made both your mom and dad take a DNA test to prove they were your parents didn't you?

You must not remember the mental beating you took last time you engaged in this line of garbage.

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.

1god
noun \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Definition of GOD
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

Me calling out a simple saying is not bigotry, it's expecting the Constitution to apply equally to everything and everyone. You only see it as bigotry because it's attacking your religion. If I was going against Islam, you'd be patting me on the back.

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.

Government is not allowed to support religion, read Al's post, especially the bolded part

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I am not sure which "religious establishment" was respected. God is not a religion.

See the following quote by Maddhattter

I don't see how it doesn't. Only the Abrahamic religions refer to their deity/deity's as "God". Even then, Muslims and Jews tend to refer to it as "Allah" and YHWH of Jehovah respectively.. Therefore, it stands to reason that acknowledging the presence of "God" only acknowledges the Christian god. Not even taking into consideration that atheists don't even agree that your god even exists to be acknowledged. So, even if it is just sanctioned religion, it is still specifically dismissing non-religion.

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.

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.

Brent is not an atheist, he is a deist. http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/sh...&postcount=102 You don't know what the word atheist is. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

I don't care if there's christmas stuff plastered inside of walmart, walmart is a private entity and isn't the government

The Congress hasn't endorsed or enforced a religion. Perfectly within the Constitutional bounds.

Yes they have, and no it's not. Read Broncojohnny's posts. Or are you going to try to argue case law in this instance as well?

Who gives a flying fuck?

racrguy, I'm pretty sure that we've covered this before. Let's say you see an old lady with a flat tire on the side of the road and you change her tire for her...if she says "God bless you." Are you gonna be a dickhole and start talking shit to her because of that? If so...you're a fucking idiot.

No, I wouldn't. That little old lady is well within her rights to believe whatever nonsense she wants. I would never tell someone they can't believe something. That, however, doesn't exempt them from skepticism, mockery, or ridicule though.

1. How many years we've been rolling with in God we trust?
2. What's it going to fix to remove it from everything?

Read the OP and it will tell you. What's it going to fix? Oh, upholding and adhering to the constitution. Y'know, nothing big.

I think it'll cost more money to do so. This is more whining over things that have little relevancy to significant problems. Similar to a cop seeing a murder in progress and deciding to just give a speeding ticket some other random motorist. Maybe on SOME level that's more important, but really should be taking care of the murder.

Who cares how much money it cost, it shouldn't have been done in the first place. While I agree with you that we have other problems that should be addressed, we aren't talking about those here.

The King, since it's been brought up twice and you've ignored it every time, and you can't be bothered to do a simple google search.

Lemon test

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon_test

http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.html

[The King]

You must not remember the mental beating you took last time you engaged in this line of garbage.

Who doled out this "mental beating" (LOL) you claim he took. Assuming you weren't hallucinating or drunk at the time, it most certainly wasn't by you.

[racrguy]

Who doled out this "mental beating" (LOL) you claim he took. Assuming you weren't hallucinating or drunk at the time, it most certainly wasn't by you.

Work the search function. Even if I were to hand you the thread/posts you're asking for you'll probably ignore it or misrepresent it like you have every other piece of evidence in this thread.

[Forever_frost]

See RG, the problem with case law precedent is it's overturned by something newer quite often. The Constitution? Has simple english. You can argue case law all you like, but the Constitution is clear:

1. It doesn't give any court power to interpret it
2. It is written in English for lay people to understand
3. Case law does not override it

[The King]

Work the search function. Even if I were to hand you the thread/posts you're asking for you'll probably ignore it or misrepresent it like you have every other piece of evidence in this thread.

See RG, the problem with case law precedent is it's overturned by something newer quite often. The Constitution? Has simple english. You can argue case law all you like, but the Constitution is clear:

1. It doesn't give any court power to interpret it
2. It is written in English for lay people to understand
3. Case law does not override it

Listen to this man, racrhatter, and learn something valuable. Why do you think the only document I qouted in this thread was the First Amendment itself? It stands on it's own, and not on the half-baked opinions of some internet forum attention whore like yourself.

Now, do tell us specifics about this "mental beating" that you claim to have been doled out, or wimp out and backpeddle on that now as I expect you to do.

[Forever_frost]

And which is easier to change? Case law or Constitution?

He's going to go on how the case law explains the constitution and how we have to abide by it. until which point it's challenged and there is a new precedent.

[mustangguy289]

Who doled out this "mental beating" (LOL) you claim he took. Assuming you weren't hallucinating or drunk at the time, it most certainly wasn't by you.

You can not prove a "mental" beating, therefore it does not really exist. lol. If it does exist, then I believe Racrguy is taking more of a "mental beating" then I ever have or will allow to have.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

1god
noun \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Definition of GOD
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

Me calling out a simple saying is not bigotry, it's expecting the Constitution to apply equally to everything and everyone. You only see it as bigotry because it's attacking your religion. If I was going against Islam, you'd be patting me on the back.

See that's where you're wrong. I don't really subscribe to any one particular religion. I'm more of an agnostic if anything. Do I know a thing or two about a few of them? Sure. But what I will stand up against, at any given time, is narrow minded knuckleheaded...ness. If you find me patting anyone on the back for attacking islam, its only because many of its people devoutly follow the "Kill everyone who isn't just like you" part. If they weren't so intent on that, I wouldn't give a flying fuck if they literally go to the moon searching for their moon god.

You don't know what the word atheist is. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

I'm afraid you've proven my point. Is there anything else you don't believe in? HAhah Example: I have a lack of belief in bigfoot. But you'll just never (ever) see me shouting from the rooftops how stupid it all is, how it shouldn't be mentioned by government, and blah blah blah [insert tired old rhetoric here]. Like you do. I'll not let "bigfoot" or "aliens" or the fucking tooth fairy get under my skin the way that you seem to let religion get under yours.

(And yes before you ask bigfoot has been addressed by government even to the point that laws have been passed in regards to it.)

That little old lady is well within her rights to believe whatever nonsense she wants. I would never tell someone they can't believe something. That, however, doesn't exempt them from skepticism, mockery, or ridicule though.

Actually, yes, it does. By your own admission. Not by your own realization, but by your own admission through other points you've stressed in the past. See if I stand up for the current law (just as you say you're doing now) and insist that marriage is between a man and a woman and not a couple of faggots, you call me a bigot. A bigot who doesn't have the right to "ridicule, be skeptical of, or mock" (in your own words above) those gays. Which is of course nothing more than a belief system like all the various religions. So you see as I've told you so many, many times before, you are what you hate. I believe the term for someone like you is hypocrite.

[mustangguy289]

I'm afraid you've proven my point. I have a lack of belief in bigfoot. But you'll just never (ever) see me shouting from the rooftops how stupid it all is, how it shouldn't be mentioned by government, and blah blah blah [insert tired old rhetoric here]. Like you do. I'll not let "bigfoot" or "aliens" or the fucking tooth fairy get under my skin the way that you seem to let religion get under yours.



.

Fear does crazy things to people.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Fear does crazy things to people.

I'm uh.. not entirely sure what you mean. You mean that racecarman is afraid of something?

[mustangguy289]

I'm uh.. not entirely sure what you mean. You mean that racecarman is afraid of something?

Referring to how atheists let religion get under their skin so much.