鬼百合
One day we will wake to his obituary :-)
More BS! LOL
Again like I said this will get slapped down for being unconstitutional. Next
Louisiana will require the 10 Commandments displayed in every public school classroom
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Again like I said this will get slapped down for being unconstitutional. Next
Nobody forgot anything. They are two separate provisions and have a different set of guidelines to determine constitutionality. Government cannot restrict religious beliefs or practices (unless it is a harmful) and governmet cannot help or hinder religion.
To do so allows dictatorial fascist government power as the Bill of Rights was passsed to restrict the powers of the central government. Some of us like independence from restrictive government and want the 1st amendment to do its job.
And we don't want a Speaker of the House to declare he governs according to the Bible.
True, although there are not many restrictions in (southern) Louisiana. Stick a copy of the 10 commandments on the classroom wall and you are good for years.
In fact they are the same sentence. You anti-liberty types attempt to discard the prohibition of infringement.
Government can certainly help religion, and does so through the tax code. Government cannot establish a particular religion to be recognized as the primary or official faith.
Particularly the power to censor speech, suppress religion, and control the press.
You seek to censor information you find offensive using government.
Would you throw him out of the house and prohibit the people from voting for him?
Perhaps you would be more comfortable if the party appointed members of congress to ensure that those who "would govern using biblical principles" are prohibited?
Say, weird idea, if the people of Louisiana believe the representatives don't represent their view, couldn't they vote them out? I mean, rather than having the federal government dictate who the people of that state are allowed to elect?
Only the House can vote to expel a member by a 2/3 vote.
Members must pledge to support the Constitution. Ruling by Biblical principles violates that oath. Laws should not dictate religious beliefs or practices.
Would you require citizens to tithe? Take up serpents? Stone to death unruly children? Attend religilous services? What Biblical principles would you rule by?
The federal government has no power to dictate who the people of LA elect.
I would require none of these dictatorial measures. Only right-wing fascists would impose such laws.
They are the same sentence but clearly refer to two separate concepts. Read some Supreme Court cases which explain the meaning of these provisions. Read the congressional debates over the proposal and ratification of the 1st amendment and most of these questions were explored and answered.
The government cannot help religion through the tax code. It applies to all non-profit organizations. If it only applied to religion it would violate the establishment of religion guidelines of Lemon v. Kurtzman.
"The statute must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion.”
Obviously allowing only churches to not pay taxes promotes religion.
I do not want to censor information. People are free to advocate and practice any religious principles they choose. But when an oppressive government dictates what speech must be expressed in the schools that takes away that freedom. There is a big difference between a government that restricts speech/religion and one that dictates speech/religion. You favor the oppressive government that dictates. The Constitution protects speech and religion and prohibits mandated speech/religion. I support the Constitution.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
)
That's nice.
But this is about the state legislature in Louisiana. The House had nothing to do with the law you object to.
Further, you would actually try to prohibit members of congress based on their religion? You would establish a religious test to determine if they can serve?
In what way? The religious test you demand would show governing that contradicts in what way?
Isn't that what the religious test you demand does? Weed out those who have faith contrary to that you support?
As I said - you can't discuss or debate honestly - because your attacks on civil liberty can't be justified. You have no choice but to toss out absurd hyperbole that has nothing to do with the facts. Ad hominem is your only hope of supporting the tyrannical assault on free speech you promote.
Then I suppose you're out of luck. As much as it pains you, this is an issue for the voters of that state - despite you knowing better how to run their lives.
You are a fascist - so it follows you would impose such laws.
Last edited:
rofl
The type of mental contortions needed by you Marxist to even type such nonsense is astounding.
Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there in.
A single clause, a single subject. Basic English grammar. You're jumping through hoops in your zeal to crush civil rights.
Again, the prohibition is in promoting a particular religion. You seek to suppress - our Bill of Rights seeks to empower.
Yes you do.
You view government as holy ground that must be sanctified by prohibiting thoughts and ideas that suggest a power greater than the state.
I said nothing about wanting a religious test. I said the only mention in the original Constitution about religion said there should be no religious test to hold any office. I support the Constitution. Only the fascist right-wing thinks only Christians should be elected.
That's exactly what you demanded. A religious test to block those that would govern by Biblical Principles.
We've already established that you are no fan of the Constitution.
You support religious tests which are prohibited in the constitution. You oppose free speech which is guaranteed, you oppose freedom of religion which is the bedrock of the 1st.
No, you most certainly do not support the Constitution.
More dishonesty.
No one said only Christians should be elected. You demanded that Christians be prohibited from holding office.
Flash, this perfectly illustrates your position.
You are either a liar or have reading comprehension problems. Show me where I posted anything demanding a religious test....You read my posts and then claim I said the opposite. If you bothered to read some of the SC establishment cases you would find they have interpreted it much broader than simply not having an established religion. The cases include much historical information showing what the founders actually said about these matters. You think civil liberties means the freedoms we have when the Bill of Rights actually specifies what the government cannot do, not what the people can do.
Liar. Where did I say that? You cannot find it because I never said it. That makes you both a liar and bearing false witness which the 10 Commandments prohibits. You must have never read it.
Post 307.
You want to ensure that elected officials will not govern using Biblical principals.
That is the definition of a religious test.
Your hatred of the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't change the reality of what you posted,