NationStates Jolt Archive


Constitution of United states - religion

SARAKIRASPENOWLAND
15-09-2005, 19:28
The Constitution of The United States garuantees the fredom of religion. Not freedom from religion.
The South Islands
15-09-2005, 19:30
The Constitution of The United States garuantees the fredom of religion. Not freedom from religion.

If you want to get picky, it does not guarentee freedom of/from religion. It just states that the federal government cannot make a law establishing a state religion.
Argesia
15-09-2005, 19:30
The Constitution of The United States garuantees the fredom of religion. Not freedom from religion.
What is the difference in the eyes of a legislator? Be rational.
Drunk commies deleted
15-09-2005, 19:30
The Constitution of The United States garuantees the fredom of religion. Not freedom from religion.
Can't have one without the other. No two religions teach exactly the same thing, therefore freedom of religion is freedom from having other religions force their beleifs upon you. And since some religions are atheist religions, like Buddhism, freedom of religion must guarantee that a concept of god isn't forced upon anyone.
Galloism
15-09-2005, 19:31
Oh here we go again.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/fedup9wr.jpg

Why do people keep making irrational declarative statements with nothing to back them up? Huh? WHY???
East Canuck
15-09-2005, 19:31
Your statement is false, as has been defined by the various courts in various rulings.
UpwardThrust
15-09-2005, 19:34
The Constitution of The United States garuantees the fredom of religion. Not freedom from religion.
Wrong


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.

the frist part ... the no law respecting an establishemnt of religion...

That means no laws endorsing OR prohibiting religion

Both directions
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 19:41
Wrong



the frist part ... the no law respecting an establishemnt of religion...

That means no laws endorsing OR prohibiting religion

Both directions

My question "Why does statue of the Ten Commandment (not a law) in the Alabama Supreme Court (which has no affiliation with Congress of the Federal government) qualify?"
Vintovia
15-09-2005, 19:41
Can you define 'freedom from religion'?
CthulhuFhtagn
15-09-2005, 19:42
My question "Why does statue of the Ten Commandment (not a law) in the Alabama Supreme Court (which has no affiliation with Congress of the Federal government) qualify?"
1. Judges are part of the Federal government.
2. According to over 100 years of precedent, the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states.
New Harumf
15-09-2005, 19:43
Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or forbiding the practice thereof, so that religion cannot interfere with business, and the excersize thereof. That's the intent.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 19:45
1. Judges are part of the Federal government.
2. According to over 100 years of precedent, the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states.

1. No. State judges are not part of the Federal government and the certaintly aren't Congress.

2. A statue wouldn't violate the Bill of Rights, because it's not a law.
New Harumf
15-09-2005, 19:46
1. Judges are part of the Federal government.
2. According to over 100 years of precedent, the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states.
I thought this was the Alabama State Supreme Court, not a federal court.
What the heck does the 14th amendment have to do with this??
CthulhuFhtagn
15-09-2005, 19:46
1. No. State judges are not part of the Federal government and the certaintly aren't Congress.

2. A statue wouldn't violate the Bill of Rights, because it's not a law.
1. Eh, I don't have a very good memory.
2. It's government endorsement of religion. That is illegal.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 19:47
I thought this was the Alabama State Supreme Court, not a federal court.
What the heck does the 14th amendment have to do with this??

The 14 amendment requires states to abide by the Federal Bill of Rights.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 19:49
1. Eh, I don't have a very good memory.
2. It's government endorsement of religion. That is illegal.

The word the Constitution uses is law, not endorsement. and again it was aimed at the Federal government. At the adoption of the Bill of Rights many states had official churches (I do not support) and no one questioned the constitutionality of it.
SARAKIRASPENOWLAND
15-09-2005, 19:51
Wrong



the frist part ... the no law respecting an establishemnt of religion...

That means no laws endorsing OR prohibiting religion

Both directions

your qoute of the constitution verifies my claim, it does not garuantee FREDOM FROM RELIGION, i can say under God if i want. even in a public forum, just as you can say thre is no God, or praise Buddha
East Canuck
15-09-2005, 19:52
The word the Constitution uses is law, not endorsement. and again it was aimed at the Federal government. At the adoption of the Bill of Rights many states had official churches (I do not support) and no one questioned the constitutionality of it.
Ever heard of the lemon test?

The government cannot support one set of religious doctrine over others. It is that simple.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 19:54
Ever heard of the lemon test?

The government cannot support one set of religious doctrine over others. It is that simple.

I am saying there is no Constitutional basis for that.
If they make a law supporting a certain religion then they've gone to far.
SARAKIRASPENOWLAND
15-09-2005, 19:58
Can you define 'freedom from religion'?

Freedom of religion says you can believe as you choose! Freedom from religion, would mean exactly that the government must stop all public prononcements relating to religion in any forum, that would include atheistic Darwinism, Christianity, etc. Nothing could be presented that was not an established fact, by all recognised sciences of the day.
Pracus
15-09-2005, 19:58
your qoute of the constitution verifies my claim, it does not garuantee FREDOM FROM RELIGION, i can say under God if i want. even in a public forum, just as you can say thre is no God, or praise Buddha

And when has anyone ever said YOU cannot say under god if you want? The government just can't force you to say it or endorse your belief in a god (IE by including that statement in the offical pledge of allegiance).
Telesto
15-09-2005, 20:03
Meh, I hate that word, "Darwinism." Makes it sound like it's a religion, which its not.

Anyway, the Pledge of Allegiance was found unconstitutional by a Federal Judge.
SARAKIRASPENOWLAND
15-09-2005, 20:04
The point being that by a Judge Ruling saying of the Pledge Unconstitutional, it infringes on my freedom of reliogion, by saying that it also frees us from religion. The child in question does not have to say the Pledge, but now doesnot have to listen to it either, that is not freedom of religion, that is freedom from religion
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:04
Meh, I hate that word, "Darwinism." Makes it sound like it's a religion, which its not.

Anyway, the Pledge of Allegiance was found unconstitutional by a Federal Judge.

And it wil be overturned by the Supreme Court.....again.
Telesto
15-09-2005, 20:07
The point being that by a Judge Ruling saying of the Pledge Unconstitutional, it infringes on my freedom of reliogion, by saying that it also frees us from religion. The child in question does not have to say the Pledge, but now doesnot have to listen to it either, that is not freedom of religion, that is freedom from religion
Ah..But you can't have religion in schools. Of course, this doesn't mean that a student can't pray on his/her own time at the school, just not be led in something that does establish a particular religion. ;)

Even though the Pledge was NOT suppose to be mandatory, in some places it has been mandatory.
Drunk commies deleted
15-09-2005, 20:08
The point being that by a Judge Ruling saying of the Pledge Unconstitutional, it infringes on my freedom of reliogion, by saying that it also frees us from religion. The child in question does not have to say the Pledge, but now doesnot have to listen to it either, that is not freedom of religion, that is freedom from religion
Bullshit. That's like saying that finding sodomy laws unconstitutional infringes on your right to screw your wife's vagina.
SARAKIRASPENOWLAND
15-09-2005, 20:10
Meh, I hate that word, "Darwinism." Makes it sound like it's a religion, which its not.

Anyway, the Pledge of Allegiance was found unconstitutional by a Federal Judge.

It is my belief that Darwinism is a religion, just as my religion is my belief, niether can be substantiated completely although simple math substantiates belief in a diety. 0+0=0 0x0=0 0/0=0 0-0=0
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:10
Ah..But you can't have religion in schools. Of course, this doesn't mean that a student can't pray on his/her own time at the school, just not be led in something that does establish a particular religion. ;)

But what religion is it establishing? Every religion has a belief in some kind of higher power. Except Athiesm, which you will probably claim is not a religion anyway, so what's the problem?
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:12
Bullshit. That's like saying that finding sodomy laws unconstitutional infringes on your right to screw your wife's vagina.

No. It's like saying that, because sodomy is legal, homosexuals have the right to never hear a single negative thing about homosexuality.
Telesto
15-09-2005, 20:13
It is my belief that Darwinism is a religion, just as my religion is my belief, niether can be substantiated completely although simple math substatites belierf in a diety. 0+0=0 0x0=0 0/0=0 0-0=0

Wrong, Darwinism is not a way of life, there for it is not a religion.

But what religion is it establishing? Every religion has a belief in some kind of higher power. Except Athiesm, which you will probably claim is not a religion anyway, so what's the problem?

"Under God" refers to the Christian God. How do I know this? It was the point in the 1954 revision of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Xenophobialand
15-09-2005, 20:15
Freedom of religion says you can believe as you choose! Freedom from religion, would mean exactly that the government must stop all public prononcements relating to religion in any forum, that would include atheistic Darwinism, Christianity, etc. Nothing could be presented that was not an established fact, by all recognised sciences of the day.

And yet, as DCD noted, you are making a distinction without a difference, because what can be claimed as a freedom from religion (removing the prhase under God from the Pledge) can just as easily be claimed to be freedom of religion (I get to practice my atheism/Buddhism/Socratic Formism/whateverism as easily now that said phrase has been removed as everyone else does their religious beliefs). You can't have one without the other.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:16
"Under God" refers to the Christian God. How do I know this? It was the point in the 1954 revision of the Pledge of Allegiance.

But it's applical to every religion. and it's not a law soo it does not violate the constitution. Everyone keeps saying the government can't endorse religion, but the Constitution just doesn't support that.
Pracus
15-09-2005, 20:18
But it's applical to every religion. and it's not a law soo it does not violate the constitution. Everyone keeps saying the government can't endorse religion, but the Constitution just doesn't support that.

Incorrect, it is only applicable to monotheistic religions--a point which has already been made multiple times in this forum.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:22
Incorrect, it is only applicable to monotheistic religions--a point which has already been made multiple times in this forum.

Because there is such a huge following of polythiestic religions in the US. :rolleyes: and anyway you are still operating under the premise that the government can't endorse religion.
Pracus
15-09-2005, 20:24
Because there is such a huge following of polythiestic religions in the US. :rolleyes:

So if there was, you would suppor the pledge say "under the goddesses" right?
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:25
So if there was, you would suppor the pledge say "under the goddesses" right?

If i was in a virtually non-existent minority? Absolutely.
The Squeaky Rat
15-09-2005, 20:26
Because there is such a huge following of polythiestic religions in the US. :rolleyes:

And their number should matter because.... ?
Pracus
15-09-2005, 20:28
If i was in a virtually non-existent minority? Absolutely.

Congratulations, you are one of the first people who has ever made me stop a line of logic. Well, not quite. Because in reality, I don't believe you for a second, but that is based on my previous experiences and I certainly cannot really prove it in this matter because I cannot see your body language or hear your voice.

However, I must concede this point at this time.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:31
And their number should matter because.... ?

Because appeasing everyone is not possible nor desirable. Government must relflect the moral fiber of its citenzry, or it is no longer truly representative. By the way 80% of Americans say they believe in "God" so they wouldn't have a problem with it. Of the 20% of americans who don't most are agnostic or atheist.
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 20:33
And their number should matter because.... ?

Because, as every neocon knows, the US isn't a democracy, it's a tyranny of the majority. Or at least so he wishes.
CSW
15-09-2005, 20:34
Because appeasing everyone is not possible nor desirable. Government must relflect the moral fiber of its citenzry, or it is no longer truly representative. By the way 80% of Americans say they believe in "God" so they wouldn't have a problem with it. Of the 20% of americans who don't most are agnostic or atheist.
Hint: A dictatorship of the majority is still a dictatorship.


I'd like to, however, defer to the coming smack down by Cat-Tribe...
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:34
Because, as every neocon knows, the US isn't a democracy, it's a tyranny of the majority. Or at least so he wishes.

How is a tyranny of the minority any less unjust? We must strike balance....
CSW
15-09-2005, 20:36
I fear a tyranny of the minority. We must strike balance....
Which is what the amendments are for. No one is saying you can't say "under god" if you so choose, just that forcing students to say under god and more to the point, having a federal law stating that we are a nation under god is a violation of the first amendment. If you'd like, I can start drawing up caselaw for you?
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 20:36
Because appeasing everyone is not possible nor desirable. Government must relflect the moral fiber of its citenzry, or it is no longer truly representative. By the way 80% of Americans say they believe in "God" so they wouldn't have a problem with it. Of the 20% of americans who don't most are agnostic or atheist.

I'm a foreigner that's never been to the US and even I know more US law than you do. The rights granted in the Constitution are NOT subject to the will of the majority. That simple. Else you'd have needed a referendum to grant blacks their rights - one which would, at the time, have not passed.
CthulhuFhtagn
15-09-2005, 20:38
It is my belief that Darwinism is a religion, just as my religion is my belief, niether can be substantiated completely although simple math substantiates belief in a diety. 0+0=0 0x0=0 0/0=0 0-0=0
Dude. You got the simple math wrong. 0/0 is undefined.

Of course, HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A DEITY?!

I apologize for the caps, but damn. That's one of the worst arguments I've heard for the existance of a god. (Slightly outranked by the "no female bulls" argument, and the "I have a penis" argument.) It's like saying that a banana is called a banana, so God exists.
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 20:40
Dude. You got the simple math wrong. 0/0 is undefined.

Of course, HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A DEITY?!

I apologize for the caps, but damn. That's one of the worst arguments I've heard for the existance of a god. (Slightly outranked by the "no female bulls" argument, and the "I have a penis" argument.) It's like saying that a banana is called a banana, so God exists.

Wait, a banana is called a banana?? O_O THERE IS A GOD!!!
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:41
I'm a foreigner that's never been to the US and even I know more US law than you do. The rights granted in the Constitution are NOT subject to the will of the majority. That simple. Else you'd have needed a referendum to grant blacks their rights - one which would, at the time, have not passed.

Again there is no right garunteed in the Constitution that declares the government can't endorse religion. Look again to the wording of the First Amendment.
Drunk commies deleted
15-09-2005, 20:42
How is a tyranny of the minority any less unjust? We must strike balance....
Right, and balance means that government doesn't mention god or religion and thereby lets everyone make his or her own decision. Congratulations, you've just endorsed secular government.
CSW
15-09-2005, 20:45
Again there is no right garunteed in the Constitution that declares the government can't endorse religion. Look again to the wording of the Fist Amendment.
Wrong.

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.


What part about "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:46
Right, and balance means that government doesn't mention god or religion and thereby lets everyone make his or her own decision. Congratulations, you've just endorsed secular government.

Letting others make their own decision is balance. Stopping others (including states) from "forcing" (sarcastic) their religions on others is not part of that balance.
Drunk commies deleted
15-09-2005, 20:46
No. It's like saying that, because sodomy is legal, homosexuals have the right to never hear a single negative thing about homosexuality.
Not at all. He claimed that by government being prohibited from endorsing religion his right to religious freedom is violated. Freedom of religion is the right to practice a religion, just like the right to sodomy is the right to engage in a certain type of sexual activity.
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 20:46
Again there is no right garunteed in the Constitution that declares the government can't endorse religion. Look again to the wording of the First Amendment.

Civil rights, which, according to the 9th ammendment, are more than only the ones listed in the Constitution, aren't subject to majority will either. Most Americans at the MLK time thought blacks shouldn't get as many rights as whites. Does that mean the Civil Rights Act shouldn't have passed? No, it means that most Americans at the time were morons, and only that.
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 20:48
Letting others make their own decision is balance. Stopping others (including states) from "forcing" (sarcastic) their religions on others is not part of that balance.

Actually it's the centerpiece of that balance. If I lived in a state that endorsed a religion, I'd be pretty angry about having MY tax money go to a church I don't believe in or to an indoctrination I don't endorse.
Drunk commies deleted
15-09-2005, 20:48
Letting others make their own decision is balance. Stopping others (including states) from "forcing" (sarcastic) their religions on others is not part of that balance.
It sure is. People need to be free to make their religious decisions free from any government coercion. Using government funds to teach kids a religious doctrine is coercive. How would you like it if the church of satan got elected to your school board and your kids were taught to add "hail satan" to the end of the pledge?
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:48
Wrong.

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.


What part about "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

Because I understand that:

1. a phrase in the pledge is not a law

2. "God" does not endorse a single religion but many (granted not all)

3. Judges, States, and Municipalities do not qualify as Congress.
The Cat-Tribe
15-09-2005, 20:49
The Constitution of The United States garuantees the fredom of religion. Not freedom from religion.

Meh.

Article VI quarantees:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Amendment I guarantees:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

(This applies to the states as well through incorporation through the 14th Amendment.)

Thus, the Constitution guarantees: (1) no religious test for office or public trust, (2) no establishment of religion, and (3) free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court has recognized that this prohibits government endorsement, sponsorship, or other establishement of religion -- i.e., protects freedom from government religion -- for at least 200 years.

The phrase "wall of separation of Church and State" has been used by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses for at least 125 years.

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
Drunk commies deleted
15-09-2005, 20:50
Because I understand that:

1. a phrase in the pledge is not a law

2. "God" does not endorse a single religion but many (granted not all)

3. Judges, States, and Municipalities do not qualify as Congress.
So then you would agree that public funds could be used to build a church, provided that all christians (the majority) could worship there?
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 20:51
1. a phrase in the pledge is not a law

The phrase was added by a law. A law that is, by the way, unconstitutional.

2. "God" does not endorse a single religion but many (granted not all)

State shouldn't endorse ANY religion. Period.

3. Judges, States, and Municipalities do not qualify as Congress.

14th Ammendment.
CSW
15-09-2005, 20:52
Because I understand that:

1. a phrase in the pledge is not a law

2. "God" does not endorse a single religion but many (granted not all)

3. Judges, States, and Municipalities do not qualify as Congress.
Oh boy.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Get it? And if you don't understand that it takes an act of congress to make the pledge, back to ninth grade civics with you.

Oh, and endorsing many religions is still as illegal is endorsing one.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:52
It sure is. People need to be free to make their religious decisions free from any government coercion. Using government funds to teach kids a religious doctrine is coercive. How would you like it if the church of satan got elected to your school board and your kids were taught to add "hail satan" to the end of the pledge?

If a local school board is elected by the people of the district and were not violating the State constitution, then I see no legal problem with it. I would be sure to explain my beliefs to my children and vote against them in the next election.
Pracus
15-09-2005, 20:54
<snip>

CHEERS! The Cat-Tribe has arrived on the scene!
Drunk commies deleted
15-09-2005, 20:54
If a local school board is elected by the people of the district and were not violating the State constitution, then I see no legal problem with it. I would be sure to explain my beliefs to my children and vote against them in the next election.
And if one of your kids decides that he wants to be a satanist you wouldn't feel that the schoolboard coerced him into following that religious path because he was young and impressionable and he was being taught that particular religious beleif each day?
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 20:55
Oh boy.


Get it? And if you don't understand that it takes an act of congress to make the pledge, back to ninth grade civics with you.

Oh, and endorsing many religions is still as illegal is endorsing one.

I understand and note that there is no law forcing anyone to say it, even in school. But how about debating all of my arguement, not just the easiest one?
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 20:55
If a local school board is elected by the people of the district and were not violating the State constitution, then I see no legal problem with it. I would be sure to explain my beliefs to my children and vote against them in the next election.

Bzzzzt! Wrong answer! The US isn't (supposed to be) a tyranny of the majority. Just like non-Christians have a right NOT TO say "under God", Christians have a right NOT TO say "under Satan". The US is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the free MAJORITY.
The Cat-Tribe
15-09-2005, 20:55
Because I understand that:

1. a phrase in the pledge is not a law

2. "God" does not endorse a single religion but many (granted not all)

3. Judges, States, and Municipalities do not qualify as Congress.

1. There is a specific federal statute that added the words
"under God," to the Pledge in 1954. 68 Stat. 249. The Pledge itself is established officially at United States Code, Title 36, sec. 172. That "law" respects an establishment of religion.

2. "God" is an inherently religious term. Don't try to deny it.

The establishment of religion includes the establishment of several religions. The First Amendment does not forbid "the establishement of a religion" but rather forbids any law "respecting an establshment of religion."

Regardless, you admit the phrase is sectarian.

3. All are subject to the 14th and 1st Amendment and cannot establish a religion. Or do you contend that a Judge, State, or Municipality can ban religion because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply?
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 20:57
I understand and note that there is no law forcing anyone to say it, even in school. But how about debating all of my arguement, not just the easiest one?

Schools in US have been known to a) force students to repeat the pledge and b) hassle those that don't say "under God". Happy now?
The Cat-Tribe
15-09-2005, 20:57
If you want to get picky, it does not guarentee freedom of/from religion. It just states that the federal government cannot make a law establishing a state religion.

AS I have noted above, this isn't accurate either.
The Cat-Tribe
15-09-2005, 20:59
Again there is no right garunteed in the Constitution that declares the government can't endorse religion. Look again to the wording of the First Amendment.

Um. You should re-read the First Amendment -- and 200 years of Supreme Court decisions.

See my earlier post.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 21:00
The Supreme Court has recognized that this prohibits government endorsement, sponsorship, or other establishement of religion -- i.e., protects freedom from government religion -- for at least 200 years.

The phrase "wall of separation of Church and State" has been used by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses for at least 125 years.

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''



And I'm arguing that the Supreme Court got it wrong. As it has on many occassions, edvidence at the many reversals of its own rulings. The Dredd Scott Case being one.
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 21:01
And I'm arguing that the Supreme Court got it wrong. As it has on many occassions, edvidence at the many reversals of its own rulings. The Dredd Scott Case being one.

For crying out loud, READ THE FIRST AMMENDMENT! You don't need the Supreme Court to know that. Damn!
The Cat-Tribe
15-09-2005, 21:03
If a local school board is elected by the people of the district and were not violating the State constitution, then I see no legal problem with it. I would be sure to explain my beliefs to my children and vote against them in the next election.

1. They would be violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

2. Your blind majoritarianism is contrary to the spirit and very purpose of the constitution. I direct you to the wisdom of SCOTUS in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 21:05
Schools in US have been known to a) force students to repeat the pledge and b) hassle those that don't say "under God". Happy now?

And any schools or administrators who instituded or enforced such a policy should be prosecuted.
The Cat-Tribe
15-09-2005, 21:06
And I'm arguing that the Supreme Court got it wrong. As it has on many occassions, edvidence at the many reversals of its own rulings. The Dredd Scott Case being one.

You are arguing -- based on no support whatsoever -- that the Court has been wrong not once, not twice, but scores of times over at least 125 years!!!!!!!!!!

From at least 1789 to this year, the Supreme Court has rejected your view over and over and over and over and over. That is scores of different Justices.

Fine. You think they are all wrong. Why?

(And you conveniently ignored all of the rest of my post.)
Xenophobialand
15-09-2005, 21:06
And I'm arguing that the Supreme Court got it wrong. As it has on many occassions, edvidence at the many reversals of its own rulings. The Dredd Scott Case being one.

Technically, the Dred Scott decision was overturned by the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. There was never a court decision that overturned Taney's ruling in that matter.

The number of rulings that have been overturned have been fairly small. In fact, the only two I can think of right now that overturned prior precedent are Lawrence v. Texas and Brown v. Board of Education. Stare decisis is one of the major principles of constitutional law.

If you want to argue that it does not agree with the natural law, however, that is another can of worms. Moreover, you'd have to present an argument for why not citing God in the Pledge of Allegiance is unnatural. I'm the first to point out that's a tough row to hoe, but if you want to try, I'd be mightily entertained.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 21:07
For crying out loud, READ THE FIRST AMMENDMENT! You don't need the Supreme Court to know that. Damn!

Nice to see all parties can remain civil. :rolleyes:
Xenophobialand
15-09-2005, 21:09
Nice to see all parties can remain civil. :rolleyes:

Beating your head against the wall of another person's illogic can make anybody ill-tempered. Cut him some slack.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 21:09
(And you conveniently ignored all of the rest of my post.)


lol Join the club.
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 21:11
Beating your head against the wall of another person's illogic can make anybody ill-tempered. Cut him some slack.

Does it not occur to you that I consider your "logic" illogical? Yet, remarkebly, I can somehow hold myself together and respect your opinion no matter how flawed I feel it is.
The Cat-Tribe
15-09-2005, 21:12
lol Join the club.

I have responded to the entire text of all of your posts to which I have responded so far.

You have yet to respond to more than a single sentence of mine. And that was with little more than "I disagree."
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 21:13
If you want to argue that it does not agree with the natural law, however, that is another can of worms. Moreover, you'd have to present an argument for why not citing God in the Pledge of Allegiance is unnatural. I'm the first to point out that's a tough row to hoe, but if you want to try, I'd be mightily entertained.

Haha Only if you can define "natural". :p
Xenophobialand
15-09-2005, 21:15
Haha Only if you can define "natural". :p

As the guy arguing for the overturning of better than 125 years of precedent, I do believe that the ball is in your court on that one. I don't need to rely on a definition of natural law, because 1) I'm not arguing that the law is immoral and wrongly-decided, and 2) I have the human law on my side.
The Cat-Tribe
15-09-2005, 21:17
The word the Constitution uses is law, not endorsement. and again it was aimed at the Federal government. At the adoption of the Bill of Rights many states had official churches (I do not support) and no one questioned the constitutionality of it.

At the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at all. The 14th Amendment prohibits states from violating the fundamental liberties of persons, including those listed in the Bill of Rights.

Moreoever, your history is a bit off. But that is irrelevant.
Feil
15-09-2005, 21:18
snip

Answer the points made against your argument or conceed. Sitting and sniping at other people not being perfecly polite, while you yourself choose to sit there and be oh-so-polite by being snide and sarcastic and superior without using any swear words, is not an argument, it's backpedaling and ad-hominem.

Now, you god-condemned bloody mother-fornicating donkey-hat, are you going to ignore my post too because it contains some fornicating impolite language, or are you going to cut the fecal matter and answer the fornicating points made against you?



EDIT: Cat Tribe, would you mind if I stole your first post on this topic for future use?
Medeo-Persia
15-09-2005, 21:18
I have responded to the entire text of all of your posts to which I have responded so far.

You have yet to respond to more than a single sentence of mine. And that was with little more than "I disagree."

I wasn't refering to you individually, but I said something similar earlier in the thread. Anyway, to completely present my case I would have to restate myself yet again, which I am weary of doing. However, if you would like to go read all of my previous posts be my guest. Sadly, though, my time here has come to an end (free time doesn't last forever). But I have enjoyed the debate and look forward to continuing it in another thread in the near future. (not that I will start one, but it's only a matter of time on this forum)
The Cat-Tribe
15-09-2005, 21:21
I wasn't refering to you individually, but I said something similar earlier in the thread. Anyway, to completely present my case I would have to restate myself yet again, which I am weary of doing. However, if you would like to go read all of my previous posts be my guest. Sadly, though, my time hear has come to an end (free time doesn't last forever). But I have enjoyed the debate and look forward to continuing it in another thread in the near future. (not that I will start one, but it's only a matter of time on this forum)

Classic. I responded to many of your arguments made throughout this thread. You haven't defended them at all.

Too bad you are now "out of time."
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 21:42
Nice to see all parties can remain civil. :rolleyes:

Well, by all means, allow me to rephrase:

Read the first ammendment and you'll realize you're so wrong that it's not even funny. Nice way NOT to answer my points BTW.
SARAKIRASPENOWLAND
15-09-2005, 21:57
Dude. You got the simple math wrong. 0/0 is undefined.

Of course, HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A DEITY?!

I apologize for the caps, but damn. That's one of the worst arguments I've heard for the existance of a god. (Slightly outranked by the "no female bulls" argument, and the "I have a penis" argument.) It's like saying that a banana is called a banana, so God exists.

The basic math / scientific truth is that you cannot have something from nothing, even BIG Bang theorists, have to ask what caused the BIG BANG; which by the way was a theory suggest by a Catholic priest, as to descibe God's creation of the universe. However i digress, Einstien as well as most people in highly educated realms have admited that any logical thinking individual still has to start with some sort of deity to explain creation. propagation may have been by intercourse, as in your question, "how the f%c& does that prove evidence for the existance of a deity." Creation was from God. I am not suggesting whose, i know which God, you'll have to guess?
Vaitupu
15-09-2005, 21:57
Now, you god-condemned bloody mother-fornicating donkey-hat, are you going to ignore my post too because it contains some fornicating impolite language, or are you going to cut the fecal matter and answer the fornicating points made against you?
ha...thats classic.

I sadly have nothing that I can add because I am pretty sure that Cat Tribe has said every possible defence that I could have come up with, and then some.
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 22:01
The basic math / scientific truth is that you cannot have something from nothing, even BIG Bang theorists, have to ask what caused the BIG BANG; which by the way was a theory suggest by a Catholic priest, as to descibe God's creation of the universe. However i digress, Einstien as well as most people in highly educated realms have admited that any logical thinking individual still has to start with some sort of deity to explain creation. propagation may have been by intercourse, as in your question, "how the f%c& does that prove evidence for the existance of a deity." Creation was from God. I am not suggesting whose, i know which God, you'll have to guess?

And THAT deity was out of nothing? See? If EVERYTHING comes from SOMETHING, so does God. By the way, no, you don't know which God, and anyone asserting that they do is very, very arrogant, to say the least.
Vaitupu
15-09-2005, 22:03
The basic math / scientific truth is that you cannot have something from nothing, even BIG Bang theorists, have to ask what caused the BIG BANG; which by the way was a theory suggest by a Catholic priest, as to descibe God's creation of the universe. However i digress, Einstien as well as most people in highly educated realms have admited that any logical thinking individual still has to start with some sort of deity to explain creation. propagation may have been by intercourse, as in your question, "how the f%c& does that prove evidence for the existance of a deity." Creation was from God. I am not suggesting whose, i know which God, you'll have to guess?


Your argument swings both ways. You ask "Where did everything come from before the big bang?". I ask "Where did God (or god, depending) come from?".

By the way, if you would like to explain back a step before the Big Bang, look into string theory (I don't know tons, so I won't go into this, but if you're interested, that is where to look)

the fact is that we could sit here for hours and say "where did ____ come from?" and get nowhere. The argument is a completely moot conversation

Edit: beaten to the punch. damn.
SARAKIRASPENOWLAND
15-09-2005, 22:08
And THAT deity was out of nothing? See? If EVERYTHING comes from SOMETHING, so does God. By the way, no, you don't know which God, and anyone asserting that they do is very, very arrogant, to say the least.

It is my faith, so therefore i do know which God, for all i know, you may not exist, this is all just a figment of my imagination, a bit of undigested pork, or cow, or sheep , or goat, am i getting warm?
SARAKIRASPENOWLAND
15-09-2005, 22:11
Your argument swings both ways. You ask "Where did everything come from before the big bang?". I ask "Where did God (or god, depending) come from?".

By the way, if you would like to explain back a step before the Big Bang, look into string theory (I don't know tons, so I won't go into this, but if you're interested, that is where to look)

the fact is that we could sit here for hours and say "where did ____ come from?" and get nowhere. The argument is a completely moot conversation

Edit: beaten to the punch. damn.

In an effort to express God in human terms we often put human limits on that which is beyond our comprehension.
Vaitupu
15-09-2005, 22:16
In an effort to express God in human terms we often put human limits on that which is beyond our comprehension.
lol...I saw that coming some how, and totally brought it upon myself.

However, why should God be the only one with that capability. If you can accept that an omnipresent omnipotent being could come from nowhere, why not some matter that you can see and feel (and I don't mean in a spiritual way...I mean in a literal "see" and "feel" concept of the 5 senses)?
Feil
15-09-2005, 22:22
Your argument swings both ways. You ask "Where did everything come from before the big bang?". I ask "Where did God (or god, depending) come from?".

By the way, if you would like to explain back a step before the Big Bang, look into string theory (I don't know tons, so I won't go into this, but if you're interested, that is where to look)

the fact is that we could sit here for hours and say "where did ____ come from?" and get nowhere. The argument is a completely moot conversation

Edit: beaten to the punch. damn.

You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's Gods all the way down.
;)
Vaitupu
15-09-2005, 22:27
You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's Gods all the way down.
;)
ha...damn, I knew I should have included the gods/Gods/invisible pink unicorn in the list.
Thuriliacayo
15-09-2005, 22:33
lol...I saw that coming some how, and totally brought it upon myself.

However, why should God be the only one with that capability. If you can accept that an omnipresent omnipotent being could come from nowhere, why not some matter that you can see and feel (and I don't mean in a spiritual way...I mean in a literal "see" and "feel" concept of the 5 senses)?

Because if it exhibits that capability,.. it IS god.

In other words,.. utter impossibleness is the very definition of god.

Yet,.. I still believe in god. In fact, the older I get, the more I do believe, as
the more utter impossibleness I see.
Heikoku
15-09-2005, 22:34
It is my faith, so therefore i do know which God, for all i know, you may not exist, this is all just a figment of my imagination, a bit of undigested pork, or cow, or sheep , or goat, am i getting warm?

Faith is so nice. Even Bin Laden can think he's right because of it.
Feil
15-09-2005, 22:44
Because if it exhibits that capability,.. it IS god.

In other words,.. utter impossibleness is the very definition of god.

Yet,.. I still believe in god. In fact, the older I get, the more I do believe, as
the more utter impossibleness I see.

So, in short:

1: It is impossible that god exists.
2: Therefore, god exists.

ah-huh...
Vaitupu
15-09-2005, 22:45
Because if it exhibits that capability,.. it IS god.

In other words,.. utter impossibleness is the very definition of god.

Yet,.. I still believe in god. In fact, the older I get, the more I do believe, as
the more utter impossibleness I see.
See, thats the leap of faith I can't take. I don't think anything is impossible, just improbable.
The Cat-Tribe
15-09-2005, 22:56
EDIT: Cat Tribe, would you mind if I stole your first post on this topic for future use?

Feel free.
Ashmoria
15-09-2005, 23:49
You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's Gods all the way down.
;)
hahahahah good answer!
Thuriliacayo
16-09-2005, 20:00
Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Because if it exhibits that capability,.. it IS god.

In other words,.. utter impossibleness is the very definition of god.

Yet,.. I still believe in god. In fact, the older I get, the more I do believe, as
the more utter impossibleness I see.

So, in short:

1: It is impossible that god exists.
2: Therefore, god exists.

ah-huh...

If god is impossibility, and impossibility exists, then god exists. Yes.

This relies on the equation of god with impossibleness/impossibilty, which I
choose to accept.

It also relies on the idea that if a concept can be formed and communicated,
regardless of whether an instance of said concept can be created, that
concept does exist.

The concept of god IS only a concept, but as a concept, exists. Since an
instance of said concept is, admittedly, impossible, no instance exists, but
the concept still remains,.. and the concept, not the impossible instance, is
what people who work with "god-stuff" use.

They (we) use the concept of god, and call it "god", as a tool, for whatever
we want to use it for.

Does that help? :)
Thuriliacayo
16-09-2005, 20:09
Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Because if it exhibits that capability,.. it IS god.

In other words,.. utter impossibleness is the very definition of god.

Yet,.. I still believe in god. In fact, the older I get, the more I do believe, as
the more utter impossibleness I see.

See, thats the leap of faith I can't take. I don't think anything is impossible, just improbable.

And that is called mysticism. If you think that "ANYTHING is possible", that is
as monsterous a "leap of faith" as thinking that "impossibility exists". In fact
they are mirror images of each other.

Impossibility does exist. If ANYTHING could exist, then the infinite possibilites
of existing forms would not allow ANY form TO form, and the infinite possible
forms would all look the same,.. and the "infinite possible" quality of the
universe would be a potential only, never to be expressed in reality.

My belief that impossibility exists at least allows the universe to form. And
since I can see portions of the universe, I'll take as confirmation that my
theory, and not yours, is correct. Or at least works for me at this point. :)
Vaitupu
16-09-2005, 20:27
And that is called mysticism. If you think that "ANYTHING is possible", that is
as monsterous a "leap of faith" as thinking that "impossibility exists". In fact
they are mirror images of each other.

Impossibility does exist. If ANYTHING could exist, then the infinite possibilites
of existing forms would not allow ANY form TO form, and the infinite possible
forms would all look the same,.. and the "infinite possible" quality of the
universe would be a potential only, never to be expressed in reality.

My belief that impossibility exists at least allows the universe to form. And
since I can see portions of the universe, I'll take as confirmation that my
theory, and not yours, is correct. Or at least works for me at this point. :)
ah...but here is the problem. If something is impossible, that means there is a 0% chance of it happening. Therefore, by definition, it cannot exist. Period. And what I believe isn't mysticisim. What I believe is that maybe it was a .00000000000001% chance that everything would fall into place and the universe would evolve to where it is today. Highly improbable. However, it happened. Perhaps there was a god. Perhaps there wasn't. My point is that it doesn't matter either way. Saying that it is impossible that god exists, and for that very reason, he does exist makes no sense. I claim that he may exist, however, it is unlikely. Therefore, I don't waste my time worrying about it
Thuriliacayo
16-09-2005, 20:43
ah...but here is the problem. If something is impossible, that means there is a 0% chance of it happening. Therefore, by definition, it cannot exist. Period.

OK,.. I'm with you on that...


And what I believe isn't mysticisim. What I believe is that maybe it was a .00000000000001% chance that everything would fall into place and the universe would evolve to where it is today.

No,.. there was exactly a 100% chance that the universe would exist as it
does now.


Highly improbable. However, it happened. Perhaps there was a god. Perhaps there wasn't. My point is that it doesn't matter either way. Saying that it is impossible that god exists, and for that very reason, he does exist makes no sense.

You're perfectly correct. It doesn't make a bit of difference about ANY
PRECONDITION for the existence of the universe.

My definition of god is "the one singular thing that is utterly impossible". Using
that definition, which I **MUST** accept on FAITH, because it is completely
unprovable, I can say that this is the ONE and ONLY case where some "thing"
(god) can be described as both impossible AND existing.

The reason that it works in the case of god, is because it's entirely
definitional,.. entirely abstract. Only something that is completely impossible
to form as an instance of a concept, and therefore can only be described AS
a concept, which EXISTS, otherwise we couldn't talk about it at all, can both
be impossible and existent.

In other words: I define it thus, therefore it is, if only to me.

Of course, the same could be said of unicorns,.. though,.. someone could call
a deformed skeletonized narwhal a "unicorn", but that just begs the definition
of "unicorn". But that's a whole other discussion.


I claim that he may exist, however, it is unlikely. Therefore, I don't waste my time worrying about it

I claim that he DOES exist..! AND is IMPOSSIBLE..!!

Therefore, I can use the concept of god as I wish, for my own purposes.
Unencumbered by any question of the existence of a "big guy in the sky" who
might have ill motives toward me and mine, or do irrational "smiting" and
whatnot.. :)