More Indoctrination

[PostmodernProphet]

When he wrote what he wrote he did not want the church interfering with the freedom of the people.

well, bullshit.....the goal was to prevent a national state imposed religion (which most of the colonists had fled England to avoid).......almost everyone of the individual colonies had predominant religions that the people wanted the freedom to practice....

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Here is an interesting question. We are told to accept "reasonable" restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights. Does that mean that Muslimes should accept "reasonable" restrictions on their 1st Amendment rights given the muslime terrorist attacks?

I think we should explore it. Who doesn't support religious safety?

 

[Timshel]

It does not occur in the constitution and should have never been ruled on, when he wrote what he wrote, he did not want the state interfering with the church not vice versa.

Madison wrote it and he was in agreement with Jefferson the source of the separation line.

This IS state interference with religion or the church.

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/firstamendment/f/first_amendment.htm

 

[Timshel]

Here is an interesting question. We are told to accept "reasonable" restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights. Does that mean that Muslimes should accept "reasonable" restrictions on their 1st Amendment rights given the muslime terrorist attacks?

I think we should explore it. Who doesn't support religious safety?

They do. What is it you consider a reasonable restriction?

 

[Steelplate]

SCOTUS should have never been involved period end of discussion, leftists just couldn't stand to have anyone telling them what douche-bags they were for the 60's rev. and their lack of morality, free love, smoke (DOPE) If it feels good do it.

Those words do not exist in the constitution period, end of discussion when they took prayer out of school they broke the law they were supposed to protect.

The rest is dead on and that's what pisses you off.

So....the SCOTUS....the Supreme entity charged with interpreting the US Constitution..and Constitutionality of law.. shouldn't have been involved? Who should have? Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? You?

You moron...the separation of church and state was created specifically for government not to be controlled by religion. I swear to God(no pun intended) that you guys won't be happy until we have a Christian American version of the Taliban running the show here.

 

[NOVA]

So....the SCOTUS....the Supreme entity charged with interpreting the US Constitution..and Constitutionality of law.. shouldn't have been involved? Who should have? Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? You?

You moron...the separation of church and state was created specifically for government not to be controlled by religion. I swear to God(no pun intended) that you guys won't be happy until we have a Christian American version of the Taliban running the show here.

the separation of church and state was created specifically for government not to be controlled by religion.???

Which is a mis-reading of the Constitution.....the 1st Amendment doesn't contain the words 'separation of Church and State'

the 1st Amendment was established specifically for religion not to be controlled by government......exactly the opposite of what you claim.


Sorry Pat66...missed your post saying the thing.

 

[Steelplate]

the separation of church and state was created specifically for government not to be controlled by religion.???

Which is a mis-reading of the Constitution.....the 1st Amendment doesn't contain the words 'separation of Church and State'

the 1st Amendment was established specifically for religion not to be controlled by government......exactly the opposite of what you claim.


Sorry Pat66...missed your post saying the thing.

Works both ways, chum....we will have no Theocracy here.

 

[Phantasmal]

Works both ways, chum....we will have no Theocracy here.

Nor did the Founding Fathers want one, they had just left England behind where church and state were bedfellows.

 

[Timshel]

the separation of church and state was created specifically for government not to be controlled by religion.???

Which is a mis-reading of the Constitution.....the 1st Amendment doesn't contain the words 'separation of Church and State'

the 1st Amendment was established specifically for religion not to be controlled by government......exactly the opposite of what you claim.


Sorry Pat66...missed your post saying the thing.

If the government compels children to attend religious assemblies or engage in prayer then they ARE controlling religion. It IS an infringement on one's right to religious liberty. This is exactly what Jefferson meant by the wall of separation between church and state. If the state controls religion or vice-versa then religious liberty or the freedom of inquiry is lost.

 

[Steelplate]

BTW....no where in the Constitution does it say "money=speech" either.

But you guys don't have a problem with that one, do you?

 

[NOVA]

Works both ways, chum....we will have no Theocracy here.

No....we have a written CONSTITUTION spelling it out so we know what it says....not what you imagine it says.

 

[NOVA]

If the government compels children to attend religious assemblies or engage in prayer then they ARE controlling religion. It IS an infringement on one's right to religious liberty. This is exactly what Jefferson meant by the wall of separation between church and state. If the state controls religion or vice-versa then religious liberty or the freedom of inquiry is lost.

There is no LAW that says children or anyone else must attend or participate in prayer....thats what the constitution means.....NO LAW....

and if its done, it certainly is wrong....but its a different issue than the 1st Amendment.....a strawman argument....

 

[NOVA]

BTW....no where in the Constitution does it say "money=speech" either.

But you guys don't have a problem with that one, do you?

It doesn't....whats your point ?....more irrelevant crap ? more " informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

More " superficially similar yet unequivalent propositions" to distract us from the issue...?

 

[Steelplate]

It doesn't....whats your point ?....more irrelevant crap ? more " informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

More " superficially similar yet unequivalent propositions" to distract us from the issue...?

Now wait....your whole argument is that it doesn't state "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, so therefore there is no such thing....right?

The same can be said for "money = speech". It's not in there so, money is not an example of free speech.

In fact, it could be reasonably argued that the latter is much more harmful to a country that is "supposedly" by, for, and of the people than the former.

Because all the separation of church and state does is put religion where it belongs... in the home, in places of worship, and in our personal lives.

However....the Notion of Money = speech? Well, hell....that's turning down the volume...perhaps even hitting the mute button on millions of people who don't have money and cranking it up on those that do.

 

[Timshel]

There is no LAW that says children or anyone else must attend or participate in prayer....thats what the constitution means.....NO LAW....

and if its done, it certainly is wrong....but its a different issue than the 1st Amendment.....a strawman argument....

Strawman? Where? I don't see where I gave any description of your arguments. Identifying logical fallacies is waaaayyyy beyond your abilities.

It does not mean that only legislative acts specifically concerning religion are prohibited. Public schools are supported by state and federal laws that provide for their financing and that compel attendance. Therefore they are subject to the first amendment.

 

[NOVA]

Strawman? Where? I don't see where I gave any description of your arguments. Identifying logical fallacies is waaaayyyy beyond your abilities.

It does not mean that only legislative acts specifically concerning religion are prohibited. Public schools are supported by state and federal laws that provide for their financing and that compel attendance. Therefore they are subject to the first amendment.

The 1st amendment deals with the gov. making (enacting) law concerning religion....not other entities breaking a law or abusing their authority.....something schools and teachers do practically every day.....so you didn't even come close to describing my arguments......
Do you know what it means "to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition" ?
Compelling kids to prayer meetings or religious services, etc. are certainly an abuse of power, not by the gov. but by the people in control of the every day
operation of the school.........teachers and administrators....its not the fault of Congress.....


"It does not mean that only legislative acts specifically concerning religion are prohibited....."

It DOES mean that legislative acts, (law),specifically (establishing) or (supporting) a religion are prohibited....
thats exactly what the 1st amendment says......its short the to the point.....not ambiguous in the least......The gov. didn't make a law, did it ?

Anyway, believe what you want....it makes no difference to me.....

 

[Timshel]

The 1st amendment deals with the gov. making (enacting) law concerning religion....not other entities breaking a law or abusing their authority.....something schools and teachers do practically every day.....so you didn't even come close to describing my arguments......
Do you know what it means "to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition" ?
Compelling kids to prayer meetings or religious services, etc. are certainly an abuse of power, not by the gov. but by the people in control of the every day
operation of the school.........teachers and administrators....its not the fault of Congress.....

Your opinion is worthless not to mention inaccurate.

The first amendment does prohibit actions by the government infringing on religious freedom. Public schools are controlled and funded by the local, state and federal government.

"It does not mean that only legislative acts specifically concerning religion are prohibited....."

It DOES mean that legislative acts, (law),specifically (establishing) or (supporting) a religion are prohibited....
thats exactly what the 1st amendment says......its short the to the point.....not ambiguous in the least......The gov. didn't make a law, did it ?

Anyway, believe what you want....it makes no difference to me.....

That's a strawman, but not really as it is more about your incredible stupidity. ONLY... did you miss that word? Do you know what it means? Do I need to explain how it modifies the sentence and break it down for you?

Yes, of course, legislative acts specifically establishing or supporting a religion are prohibited. But it is not ONLY legislative acts that are prohibited.

 

[patriot66]

When he wrote what he wrote he did not want the church interfering with the freedom of the people.

The Church dosen't interfere with anyones freedom, but secular humanists like yourself think you should be able to limit Christians in what they can do, and participate in based on a ruling that circumvented the US constitution when taking prayer out of school, no one should have to participate if they do not want to, but that should not limit a Teachers right to freely express their love for God. How is it ok for a basketball player to be celebrated for being a homosexual, but a football player who shows his faith is beat up by the media.

 

[patriot66]

The idea that christianity would be the only religion represented in our public schools flies in the face of what this nation created and has maintained over the 2 centuries we have existed. The problem was that it took too long for those of other faiths and atheists to be able to challenge the heavy hand of the christians. For far too long we suffered under the thumb of those idiots.

You are full of shiite, I never said anyone should be excluded from the opportunity to share in prayer of their own kind problem is some then yell allah akbar and then blow themselves up. Say what you want but many of the founders were clearly christians and in favor of the abilty to share ones faith, whatever it is, I don't want one religion only.What the h e double toothpick, atheists aren't supposed to believe in anything how are they being harmed, they are not, that is the answer sit back and laugh at us but shut up seriously.

 

[patriot66]

Oh, and the SCOTUS did get involved and ruled. And they have ruled consistently every time.

The time of christians being able to get their way is over. That is what pisses you off.

We removed Roy Moore's 10 Commandment monument. We removed the school led prayer that excluded every who was not christian. And we will stop the nonsense at this school, if it is what it is portrayed to be.

You might get used to the idea that your religious beliefs are your own. You are welcome to them, but you may not require the rest of us to follow them.

The gov't is secular and will both remain so and become more so.

Scotus ruled, and in so doing broke the law by circumventing the constitution, and limiting the freedom of religious expression based on something that is not in the constitution which means they ruled on something that should never been considered, as far as getting what I want, maybe you should start worrying about our Muslim sympathizing President who will do nothing to stop themfrom purpotrating their crimes against all Governments