Militant Atheism Picks On...

[The Night Owl]

The rights of individuals to practice their religion without government interference is inviolate. That includes those who are in the government.  No where does it say that people are protected from being exposed to the religion of others.

How does a postage stamp with a religious figure interfere with anybody practicing their religion?

People in government are allowed to practice religion. What they may not do is use government to promote or inhibit the practice of religion.

[Celtic Rose]

People in government are allowed to practice religion. What they may not do is use government to promote or inhibit the practice of religion.

And how does putting Mother Teresa on a postage stamp do either of those things?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I don't really have a problem with purely ceremonial uses of religious expression.

Well, thank Dog you're here to tell us what YOU want.

How are you fixed for ceremonial prayers before high school football games?

And while you're at it stop ingoring stuff:

Have you ever read the Massachusett(e)s state constitution written by the Adams brothers? It actually allows for the state to fund the building of churches and the retention of salaried ministers. While later repealed apparently at the time it was in perfect accord with the COTUS. I wonder what that implies.

[Alpha Mare]

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Jefferson was appalled at the monopoly the Church of England held over the Virginia colony.  A series of VA statutes made it a crime for parents not to baptist their children, prohibited other religious meetings, or distribution of their books. Children could be removed from their parents, and offenders barred from employment and military service, or expelled from the colony.  Anyone accused of heresy against the Church of England could be burnt at the stake.

His "wall of separation" was his firm belief that government be excluded from intruding into the realm of religion, and vice versa.

[The Night Owl]

And how does putting Mother Teresa on a postage stamp do either of those things?

I'm not against putting Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu stamp... which isn't to say that I consider her above criticism.

[Celtic Rose]

I'm not against putting Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu stamp... which isn't to say that I think she was beyond criticism.

So, in other words, you agree that the Atheists filing this lawsuit are out of line.  Why did you decide to become argumentative in this discussion if that is the case?

[The Night Owl]

How are you fixed for ceremonial prayers before high school football games?

I'm not against high school atheletes being given the opportunity to join in prayer before a game but I don't think they should be led in prayer.

Have you ever read the Massachusett(e)s state constitution written by the Adams brothers? It actually allows for the state to fund the building of churches and the retention of salaried ministers. While later repealed apparently at the time it was in perfect accord with the COTUS. I wonder what that implies.

What is there to say? Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution is clearly not in accordance with the US Constitution and the fact that it was amended serves to underline the disparity.

[The Night Owl]

So, in other words, you agree that the Atheists filing this lawsuit are out of line.

That sounds about right.

[Oceander]

People in government are allowed to practice religion. What they may not do is use government to promote or inhibit the practice of religion.

No, what they may not do is use the resources of the State to "establish" a particular religion.  That would is a much narrower term of art than, say, "promoting or inhibiting the practice of religion" which is broad to the point of inanity.

[The Night Owl]

No, what they may not do is use the resources of the State to "establish" a particular religion.  That would is a much narrower term of art than, say, "promoting or inhibiting the practice of religion" which is broad to the point of inanity.

What the EC says is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. So, the EC is a lot more broad than you think.

[Oceander]

What the EC says is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. So, the EC is a lot more broad than you think.

Very good.  At least you can read - when you want to - to paraphrase Haughty Harry.  A law that is one "respecting the establishment of religion" is one with the purpose of establishing a state religion.  It is not one that merely has the ancillary effect of acknowledging that religions exist and that they mean a lot to their various adherents.

Putting up a menorah, but not a creche, is not the "establishment of religion" nor is it an act "respecting [the] establishment of religion."

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

What is there to say? Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution is clearly not in accordance with the US Constitution and the fact that it was amended serves to underline the disparity.

Mass. ratifified the COTUS in 1788. They ratified their own constitution 1789. The BoR was adopted in 1791 but COTCOM wasn't repealed until 1917.

Got a new theory?

[Chris_]

What is there to say? Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution is clearly not in accordance with the US Constitution and the fact that it was amended serves to underline the disparity.

Actually if you read the history of the Massachusetts Constitution, this article was not amended because it conflicted with the "Establishment Clause" in COTUS, it was amended in antiquity due to the influx of new denominations to the state, which, until that point had been dominated primarily by one group religiously.........

During the post-colonial era there were more than one state to "establish" a recognition for a particular religion, but in those times, lawmakers adhered to the philosophy that COTUS actually meant what it says, and didn't attempt to make a "living document" out of it......

As the state(s) became more religiously diverse, the "people" chose  to recognize that fact.......funny how that works.....

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Actually if you read the history of the Massachusetts Constitution, this article was not amended because it conflicted with the "Establishment Clause" in COTUS, it was amended in antiquity due to the influx of new denominations to the state, which, until that point had been dominated primarily by one group religiously.........

During the post-colonial era there were more than one state to "establish" a recognition for a particular religion, but in those times, lawmakers adhered to the philosophy that COTUS actually meant what it says, and didn't attempt to make a "living document" out of it......

As the state(s) became more religiously diverse, the "people" chose  to recognize that fact.......funny how that works.....

doc

Yes but TNO doesn't want stuff and that's what really matters.

Your vote is merely ceremonial.

[Chris_]

Yes but TNO doesn't want stuff and that's what really matters.

Your vote is merely ceremonial.

I find it amusing to watch educated liberals work themselves up into a lather over those pesky "enumerated powers"............for some reason they can't seem to comprehend what that is all about.......

doc

[delilahmused]

I don't know why people always say "this or that" is implicit in the Constitution. The writers seem pretty direct so if they wanted separation of church and state why wouldn't they just say so? Everyone from the very religious to athiests were there. My God, these men just fought a revolution, friends, sons, fathers, died for freedom, I highly doubt they'd suddenly become limp-wristed and vague writing the very document meant to preserve that freedom.

Cindie

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I don't know why people always say "this or that" is implicit in the Constitution. The writers seem pretty direct so if they wanted separation of church and state why wouldn't they just say so? Everyone from the very religious to athiests were there. My God, these men just fought a revolution, friends, sons, fathers, died for freedom, I highly doubt they'd suddenly become limp-wristed and vague writing the very document meant to preserve that freedom.

Cindie

What are you implying?

*runs*

[TheSarge]

The separation is implicit.

And your interpretation of what the separation means is nothing but retarded.

It was put in there to prevent what happened in England from happening here...specifically the head of the country also being the head of the only recognized church of the country as well.

If Obama went on the air tomorrow and said that all religions except that of the AME Church was outlawed and henceforth EVERYONE in the country was required to become a member of the AME Church...THAT would be a violation of the separation of church and state.

Saying a prayer before a football game or having the Ten Commandments on display at a Federal building is NOT a violation.

And it seems your fellow Libtards enjoy playing fast and loose with which religion is not supposed to be on display and which isn't.

And that in itself is a violation.

[Thor]

And your interpretation of what the separation means is nothing but retarded.

It was put in there to prevent what happened in England from happening here...specifically the head of the country also being the head of the only recognized church of the country as well.

If Obama went on the air tomorrow and said that all religions except that of the AME Church was outlawed and henceforth EVERYONE in the country was required to become a member of the AME Church...THAT would be a violation of the separation of church and state.

Saying a prayer before a football game or having the Ten Commandments on display at a Federal building is NOT a violation.

And it seems your fellow Libtards enjoy playing fast and loose with which religion is not supposed to be on display and which isn't.

And that in itself is a violation.

exactly, Sarge!! (on all counts)

[MrsSmith]

If Jefferson had any intention of limiting the practice of religion, he would not have purchased Bibles for the public schools.

He most certainly did not intend that our government force the religion of secular humanism/atheism/Darwinism on every child and on all public property.  He also did not intend that the free speech of Christians on private property be held captive to threats of massive taxation.  But then, Jefferson actually READ all those words printed in red...unlike the rabid leftists that use our court system to silence as many as they can.

[docstew]

ummm, question for TNO: Not that he wouldn't have been able to ask, but how would Thomas Jefferson have known the intent of the Framers of the COTUS?  He wasn't there, but rather was in France.  Your argument is based upon his correspondence with a church stating that there should be a wall of separation.  Do you have anything for this wall from Madison?  Washington?

[The Night Owl]

If Jefferson had any intention of limiting the practice of religion, he would not have purchased Bibles for the public schools.

Let me guess... Wallbuilders?

David Barton is a hack. You have been misled.

[The Night Owl]

ummm, question for TNO: Not that he wouldn't have been able to ask, but how would Thomas Jefferson have known the intent of the Framers of the COTUS?  He wasn't there, but rather was in France.  Your argument is based upon his correspondence with a church stating that there should be a wall of separation.  Do you have anything for this wall from Madison?  Washington?

My argument is based on the fact that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Like I wrote earlier, this is by design.

[Carl]

My argument is based on the fact that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Like I wrote earlier, this is by design.

Your argument is irrelevant as the Constitution as written before the Bill of Rights is simply the layout of a governmental system.
Read it...  http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

There is no more a need or cause to mention God in that any more then there is in writing down a recipe for a pie or cake.
It simply does not apply and to try to claim there was a meaning is just nonsense and stupidity.

That was immediately followed by the Bill of Rights with the first amendment being as follows.

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.
http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

It is perfectly clear in the language that there was to be no state religion nor was there to be a denial of anyones rights to exercise their own.
To suggest that any display of anything religious in nature is somehow banned by the Constitution is just plain a lie.

[The Night Owl]

To suggest that any display of anything religious in nature is somehow banned by the Constitution is just plain a lie

Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.