So much for the constitution.....

[mstng86]

Isn't Maddhatter a woman?

[mustangguy289]

Isn't Maddhatter a woman?

she mad.

[Denny]

This has already been covered in this thread. Please refer to the previous post concerning this issue to see my problem with this apologetic.

You keep saying things have been covered, yet they still remain to be a point of discussion. Just because it was visited once in a discussion, doesn't mean it's "covered."

[jasonw_2005]

I am not sure... I can't prove that I have a headache, so it does not exist.

Ha ha. Nice

[Maddhattter]

You keep saying things have been covered, yet they still remain to be a point of discussion. Just because it was visited once in a discussion, doesn't mean it's "covered."

You, nor anyone else has brought anything new to the table in regard to those points. There's no point in copy/pasting the the counter to the same point that no one has addressed.

So, until something new has been brought to the table, it has been covered.

Covered =/= we all agree.

[The King]

I am not sure... I can't prove that I have a headache, so it does not exist.

Does the Constitution guarantee the right of the people of the United States to have a headache, or does Congress and the O.P. need to revisit that issue too?

[mstng86]

You, nor anyone else has brought anything new to the table in regard to those points. There's no point in copy/pasting the the counter to the same point that no one has addressed.

So, until something new has been brought to the table, it has been covered.

Covered =/= we all agree.

point taken and covered.

[mustangguy289]

Does the Constitution guarantee the right of the people of the United States to have a headache, or does Congress and the O.P. need to revisit that issue too?

In headaches we trust.


The constituion guarantees that I have the right to practice any religion I want without persecution for it. It does not take away religion.

[GhostTX]

So...the national motto is now a law? You must worship now? The Church of the United States has been established?

[The King]

So, you're stating that Denny has not stated his support for the constitution, and in this thread stated that he's glad that the government is supporting religion, which is is forbidden to do in said constitution?

Wrong, the First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere in those words is there any forbiddance of the government to support religion, rather there is only language forbidding the government to enact laws establishing a particular, or shall we say "official" state religion. If you need an example of a government-established religion, look to the Islamic Republic of Iran for guidance. Don't put your opinions into the same league as what our Constitution actually says.

Read the quote below for further education on this matter.

The constituion guarantees that I have the right to practice any religion I want without persecution for it. It does not take away religion.

[mstng86]

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.

[Maddhattter]

Wrong, the First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere in those words is there any forbiddance of the government to support religion, rather there is only language forbidding the government to enact laws establishing a particular, or shall we say "official" state religion. If you need an example of a government-established religion, look to the Islamic Republic of Iran for guidance. Don't put your opinions into the same league as what our Constitution actually says.

"Respecting an establishment of religion" has never been "establishing a particular, or shall we say "official" state religion". Never is it implied, or stated.

Even the courts disagree with you, using the Utah crosses as an example. The government cannot support any religion. In order to do that an not prohibit the free exercise thereof, it must remain neutral on the topic.

Read the quote below for further education on this matter.

As a general rule, I find things like the federalist papers, as they were written by the founders, to better explain what the founding fathers thought about the amendments they put in and/or backed and how they intended them to be applied.

Besides, "The constituion guarantees that I have the right to practice any religion I want without persecution for it. It does not take away religion. " is a statement totally irrelevant to this thread as no one is endorsing the removal of personal rights in this thread.

[mustangguy289]

"Respecting an establishment of religion" has never been "establishing a particular, or shall we say "official" state religion". Never is it implied, or stated.

.


.

Having "In God we trust" supports all religions and does not establish a state religion.

Removing "In God we trust" supports atheism and establishes atheism as a state religion.


Problem solved. Keep it.

[Maddhattter]

Having "In God we trust" supports all religions and does not establish a state religion.

Removing "In God we trust" supports atheism and establishes atheism as a state religion.


Problem solved. Keep it.

Again, this point has been covered. You've brought nothing new to the table as you've not indicated how either point is so.

[The King]

"Respecting an establishment of religion" has never been "establishing a particular, or shall we say "official" state religion". Never is it implied, or stated.

Even the courts disagree with you, using the Utah crosses as an example. The government cannot support any religion. In order to do that an not prohibit the free exercise thereof, it must remain neutral on the topic.


As a general rule, I find things like the federalist papers, as they were written by the founders, to better explain what the founding fathers thought about the amendments they put in and/or backed and how they intended them to be applied.

Besides, "The constituion guarantees that I have the right to practice any religion I want without persecution for it. It does not take away religion. " is a statement totally irrelevant to this thread as no one is endorsing the removal of personal rights in this thread.

Prove it.