1st Amendment!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
One can be free with or without religion. You cannot be free without the choice. You are being extremely hostile to the first yourself. You clearly wish it didn't exist because if one has a belief he is not "free", according to your post.
One man expresses an opinion about freedom and alex pretends that it was a suggestion for a law...
Epicurus
Reasonable
I think it's funny that he tried to downplay the differences between the Mormon and Southern Baptist Religious Right.
Romney: We both believe that we know exactly what is best for everyone else to believe, so what does it matter if we have slight differences on what exactly that is?
Romney: We both believe that we know exactly what is best for everyone else to believe, so what does it matter if we have slight differences on what exactly that is?
One can be free with or without religion. You cannot be free without the choice. You are being extremely hostile to the first yourself. You clearly wish it didn't exist because if one has a belief he is not "free", according to your post.
One man expresses an opinion about freedom and alex pretends that it was a suggestion for a law...
I agree you cannot be free without the choice. But thats not what Romney said!
What he said was not a proposal for a law. He is not "against" the first. It is preposterous to assume that what he said translates to that.
I don't like the guy and hope he isn't nominated, but that doesn't change that I can realize he has proposed nothing "against" the first amendment.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders — in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion _ rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."
Mitt Romney
What about the guy who is not of any strain of religion, are you a friend of his?
Mitt Romney
What about the guy who is not of any strain of religion, are you a friend of his?
Congress shall pass no law promoting the establishment of Religen or prohibiting the free exersize thereof.
If that were to read, "Congress shall pass no law promoting the estabilshment of A religen". I would agree Romney was correct, but too many Republicans want to promote the establishment of Religen over non-religen. That is WRONG and in my opinion UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I do understand your point, that he is not promoting a law. So technically he is not promoting a violation of the 1st... But he is, in my opinion violating the spirit of the 1st and demonstrating a very dangerous viewpoint, that to be non-religous is unamerican.
If that were to read, "Congress shall pass no law promoting the estabilshment of A religen". I would agree Romney was correct, but too many Republicans want to promote the establishment of Religen over non-religen. That is WRONG and in my opinion UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I do understand your point, that he is not promoting a law. So technically he is not promoting a violation of the 1st... But he is, in my opinion violating the spirit of the 1st and demonstrating a very dangerous viewpoint, that to be non-religous is unamerican.
When did he give any indication of a hope to pass any law?
You are seriously reaching for straws, silly ones. Much of what he stated was expressed by various founders. The idea that religion is to be kept from the public arena was never a goal of the founders, they expressed it often.
Your, "He wants to violate your rights" rubbish, is exactly that. It is sad to watch an attorney who can't objectively look at this.
Let's look at this logically.
Reality:
1. There is religion in the word and, in fact, most in the US profess a belief in one.
2. If we have freedom of religion, there would be no way to separate the fact that one could not have that freedom without religion and that if there is true freedom one would not be able to have it while rejecting all religions officially.
3. He said so.
4. You got all bent because you want everybody in office to seem to follow your religion of Atheism. (yes it becomes a religion when it is pushed so strongly on others.)
Reality:
1. There is religion in the word and, in fact, most in the US profess a belief in one.
2. If we have freedom of religion, there would be no way to separate the fact that one could not have that freedom without religion and that if there is true freedom one would not be able to have it while rejecting all religions officially.
3. He said so.
4. You got all bent because you want everybody in office to seem to follow your religion of Atheism. (yes it becomes a religion when it is pushed so strongly on others.)
I understand your point, he is not promoting a law so he is not promoting the violation of the 1st.
BUT he is promoting the idea that for government to promote God or A God is okay, and its NOT.
The SCOTUS appears to have rejected your argument and allowed our national motto to be changed from E. Pluribus Unim to "In God We Trust".
Case?
Even if they did, I disagree. If government can promote religen over non-religen we have no true seperation of church and state.