NationStates Jolt Archive

There is no such thing in the constitution. And if there is, I want you to show me. Copy the text out of the constitution, and tell me which section, subsection, and paragraph it is in.

Can I get this stickied?

No.

You need a lesson about the life and times of Jefferson and Madison.

Never mind the fact the Constitution was not designed to be solely about absolutes.....

To quote Madison:

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"

Your point? The fact of the matter is that Seperation of Church and State has been used to declare many things unconstitutional, when in fact, they aren't.

There is no such thing in the constitution. And if there is, I want you to show me. Copy the text out of the constitution, and tell me which section, subsection, and paragraph it is in.

Can I get this stickied?
if you really want it to stay, just bump it. but, no offence, don't. this thread doesn't need to stay.

Really? This is important. See, if a little thing like Pray can be taken from schools, and our Pledge was nearly rewritten because of one father in California, what is to stop someone from doing something drastic, like making up rules as to how Congress should Run?

Your point? The fact of the matter is that Seperation of Church and State has been used to declare many things unconstitutional, when in fact, they aren't.
It's built on a series of decisions regarding the 'establishment' clause. It's part of that whole 'living document' thing, you can't always go all the way back for a reset.

Or try this experiment-okay, we've integrated church and state, but-it's the snake handlers and now your kids have to handle snakes in the 4th grade. Still sound great?

State is for government, freedom of religon means you go to the church of your choice, believe what you choose and no one else uses the government to make your kids handle snakes.

Really? This is important. See, if a little thing like Pray can be taken from schools, and our Pledge was nearly rewritten because of one father in California, what is to stop someone from doing something drastic, like making up rules as to how Congress should Run?
That's not even a slippery slope, because it requires the leap over a giant chasm...

Really? This is important. See, if a little thing like Pray can be taken from schools, and our Pledge was nearly rewritten because of one father in California, what is to stop someone from doing something drastic, like making up rules as to how Congress should Run?

Yes. The pledge has been modified a couple times. "Under God" is a cold war addition.

Strawman on the last part. You can't change Congress without changing the Constitution. They made it hard to change on purpose.....

I'm glad that there is a seperation of Church and State, you know what happened the last time the church controlled the government, Salem Witch trials and the Dark Ages come to mind.

Really? This is important. See, if a little thing like Pray can be taken from schools, and our Pledge was nearly rewritten because of one father in California, what is to stop someone from doing something drastic, like making up rules as to how Congress should Run?
so are you saying that my jewish cousins in america have to be forced to swear to the christian god and pray christian prayers? f**k off! you can do it, but you can't make people do it is the idea

Really? This is important. See, if a little thing like Pray can be taken from schools, and our Pledge was nearly rewritten because of one father in California, what is to stop someone from doing something drastic, like making up rules as to how Congress should Run?
For fuck's sake is it too much to ask that people [gasp!] pray during one of the sixteen hours out of the day that you're not at school? Does God demand you pray between the hours of 7am and 3pm? Does he just not hear you if you don't?

Your point? The fact of the matter is that Seperation of Church and State has been used to declare many things unconstitutional, when in fact, they aren't.

Yes. Efforts to promote one Religion over others should be declared unconstitution. Especially when using goverment funds.

There are many things that haven't changed. The Status in front of SCOTUS don't violate the 1st amendment because Christianity is not getting promoted.

The statue of the 10 commandments in Texas(or was it Kentucky) was not declared unconstitution because it was a movie promotional item from Cecil Be Demilles 10 Commandments.

You forget the intent of the establishment clause, the goverment will be religious neutral.....

I'm glad that there is a seperation of Church and State, you know what happened the last time the church controlled the government, Salem Witch trials and the Dark Ages come to mind.

Oh but you forgot the great periods of tollerance called the Crusades and the Inquisition!

Really? This is important. See, if a little thing like Pray can be taken from schools,

The ability to pray has never been denied. I don't know of any student that doesn't pray before an exam.

Does God demand you pray between the hours of 7am and 3pm? Does he just not hear you if you don't?

He has his radio turned off after 3pm.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution:
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 bolded sections of the First Amendment are known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Since we are dealing with "separation between church and state," we should concentrate on the Establishment Clause. There are three different interpretations to the Establishment Clause:
1) Broad Interpretation - The government cannot provide any special aid to any religion whatsoever. No tax money should be used to support religious activities, or practice, in institutions. The government can provide assistance that makes it easier for people to exercise their religion.
2) Narrow interpretation - The government cannot give one religious group preferential treatment. The government is not prohibited from supporting religion, as long as it is done impartially.
3) Literal Interpretation - The government is only prohibits the establishment of an official government religion. The government is not prohibited from participating in religious practices.

You would have a point of there not being a Separation between Church and State, Belator, if everyone in the country firmly interprets the Establishment Clause as either Narrowly or Literally. However, there is (and hopefully always will be) a strong case for the Broad Interpretation (for hopefully obvious reasons).

No it's not, But neither is not being beaten to death.

so are you saying that my jewish cousins in america have to be forced to swear to the christian god and pray christian prayers? f**k off! you can do it, but you can't make people do it is the idea

No, but what I am saying is that it did come under national attention that muslims wanted to include prayers in school! And I never said anything about forcing anyone to pray in school! You guys assumed I was forcing you all to pray like we were in the 1850s, when, in all reality, many kids didn't. So I suggest you think before you flame, and actually use your brain.

And I never said anything about the government assuming control of religion. You all assumed that was what was going to happen.

Cannot, Congress does not operate under a set of rules for addressing issues. I believe they operate on the constitution rules when the issue of voting on bills and other major issues comes up, but other than that...the rules can be changed by anyone with a majority.

Now, how about you stop making an ass out of u and me and actually post something intelligent? Otherwise, I will have to judge you all too immature for intelligent debates.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution:


The bolded sections of the First Amendment are known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Since we are dealing with "separation between church and state," we should concentrate on the Establishment Clause. There are three different interpretations to the Establishment Clause:
1) Broad Interpretation - The government cannot provide any special aid to any religion whatsoever. No tax money should be used to support religious activities, or practice, in institutions. The government can provide assistance that makes it easier for people to exercise their religion.
2) Narrow interpretation - The government cannot give one religious group preferential treatment. The government is not prohibited from supporting religion, as long as it is done impartially.
3) Literal Interpretation - The government is only prohibits the establishment of an official government religion. The government is not prohibited from participating in religious practices.

You would have a point of there not being a Separation between Church and State, Belator, if everyone in the country firmly interprets the Establishment Clause as either Narrowly or Literally. However, there is (and hopefully always will be) a strong case for the Broad Interpretation (for hopefully obvious reasons).

Unfortunately, I am about ready to give up hope humanity would be smart enough to do this.

The NYPD are considered a Government Agency, correct?

No, but what I am saying is that it did come under national attention that muslims wanted to include prayers in school! And I never said anything about forcing anyone to pray in school! You guys assumed I was forcing you all to pray like we were in the 1850s, when, in all reality, many kids didn't. So I suggest you think before you flame, and actually use your brain.
Great, then we're done here-since kids can pray on thier own all they want.

And I never said anything about the government assuming control of religion. You all assumed that was what was going to happen.

Cannot, Congress does not operate under a set of rules for addressing issues. I believe they operate on the constitution rules when the issue of voting on bills and other major issues comes up, but other than that...the rules can be changed by anyone with a majority.

Now, how about you stop making an ass out of u and me and actually post something intelligent? Otherwise, I will have to judge you all too immature for intelligent debates.
I'm not sure how that addresses anything.

No, but what I am saying is that it did come under national attention that muslims wanted to include prayers in school! And I never said anything about forcing anyone to pray in school! You guys assumed I was forcing you all to pray like we were in the 1850s, when, in all reality, many kids didn't. So I suggest you think before you flame, and actually use your brain.

And I never said anything about the government assuming control of religion. You all assumed that was what was going to happen.

Cannot, Congress does not operate under a set of rules for addressing issues. I believe they operate on the constitution rules when the issue of voting on bills and other major issues comes up, but other than that...the rules can be changed by anyone with a majority.

Now, how about you stop making an ass out of u and me and actually post something intelligent? Otherwise, I will have to judge you all too immature for intelligent debates.
the government says you can pray outside school all you want to whoever, whenever. the idea is that it causes problems having prayer in school for such reasons. what would the athiests do during "prayer time"? and before you accuse me of flaming, you did do some stuff that some may consider flaming

No, but what I am saying is that it did come under national attention that muslims wanted to include prayers in school! And I never said anything about forcing anyone to pray in school! You guys assumed I was forcing you all to pray like we were in the 1850s, when, in all reality, many kids didn't. So I suggest you think before you flame, and actually use your brain.


Well you left out some details.

Muslims didn't demand class led prayer time. They asked for an empty room or some spot to where they could fullfil their obligations. That is a huge difference from mandetory or class led prayers.

the government says you can pray outside school all you want to whoever, whenever. the idea is that it causes problems having prayer in school for such reasons. what would the athiests do during "prayer time"? and before you accuse me of flaming, you did do some stuff that some may consider flaming

Actually, I only cursed once out of that entire post, and kept my tone fairly reasonable, despite words being put in my mouth and being cursed at.

And Athiests can study during prayer time, or read. So long as it doesn't disturb other people, there isn't a problem with it.

Cannot, Congress does not operate under a set of rules for addressing issues. I believe they operate on the constitution rules when the issue of voting on bills and other major issues comes up, but other than that...the rules can be changed by anyone with a majority.

That halp Cannot?

Well you left out some details.

Muslims didn't demand class led prayer time. They asked for an empty room or some spot to where they could fullfil their obligations. That is a huge difference from mandetory or class led prayers.

Oh. I had forgotten about that detail. I do remember the detail that said they wanted a series of horns to be rung that was loud enough to be heard throughout the city of Manhattan to announce when it was time to pray.

Unfortunately, I am about ready to give up hope humanity would be smart enough to do this.

The NYPD are considered a Government Agency, correct?

You wanted a Constitutional basis for the Separation of Church and State, no? Now you have it. If you wanted something as basic as this to be spelled out in bold red letters in the Constitution for you, thats too bad. The advantage the U.S. Constitution has is that it can be reinterpreted and amended as time passes and new situations arise. Are you insisting that should take the Consitution in its absolute literal form?

Oh. I had forgotten about that detail. I do remember the detail that said they wanted a series of horns to be rung that was loud enough to be heard throughout the city of Manhattan to announce when it was time to pray.

Yes and they are willing to work out issues. A city in Michigan has a large Mosque. They wanted the same thing and the people worked it out. The early morning ones were not done for consideration of non-Muslims.

This is not to say there aren't any Muslims thinking they are being cheated, but I find them somewhat agreeable over issues. We have a large number at work. They wanted their prayer time and all they asked was the ability to do it and a closet to set down their rugs.

Still different from class led prayers.....

Oh. I had forgotten about that detail. I do remember the detail that said they wanted a series of horns to be rung that was loud enough to be heard throughout the city of Manhattan to announce when it was time to pray.
You mean like church bells?

Actually, I only cursed once out of that entire post, and kept my tone fairly reasonable, despite words being put in my mouth and being cursed at.

i didn't just mean the last post you made, what about the one in huge letters, etc? also, my swearing, most people would have realised was directed at those who would try and enforce such things, not you.

And Athiests can study during prayer time, or read. So long as it doesn't disturb other people, there isn't a problem with it.
why should the atheists need to do things during prayer time that they can do at home? why can't everyone go home to do these or do them during the breaks at school?

There is no such thing in the constitution. And if there is, I want you to show me. Copy the text out of the constitution, and tell me which section, subsection, and paragraph it is in.

Can I get this stickied?

Ok, so there's no right to free speech either, since those exact words aren't in the Constitution. Some words that mean the same thing are there, but you obviously don't care about words that mean the same thing.

In fact, all of the rights people talk about every day, with the possible exception of the right to bear arms, simply don't exist in the Constitution, by your logic.

of the right to bear arms.

HEY I didn't get my bear arms! :p

And Athiests can study during prayer time, or read. So long as it doesn't disturb other people, there isn't a problem with it.
Your praying disturbes my studying... there's a problem.

You mean like church bells?

Ah, but they are not timed to go off at exactly the same time.

Yes and they are willing to work out issues. A city in Michigan has a large Mosque. They wanted the same thing and the people worked it out. The early morning ones were not done for consideration of non-Muslims.

This is not to say there aren't any Muslims thinking they are being cheated, but I find them somewhat agreeable over issues. We have a large number at work. They wanted their prayer time and all they asked was the ability to do it and a closet to set down their rugs.

Still different from class led prayers.....

Alright then, how is it different?

You wanted a Constitutional basis for the Separation of Church and State, no? Now you have it. If you wanted something as basic as this to be spelled out in bold red letters in the Constitution for you, thats too bad. The advantage the U.S. Constitution has is that it can be reinterpreted and amended as time passes and new situations arise. Are you insisting that should take the Consitution in its absolute literal form?

No, I just want to give you a non-christian break of the Seperation of Church and State Rule. So, is the NYPD a government agency or not?

why should the atheists need to do things during prayer time that they can do at home? why can't everyone go home to do these or do them during the breaks at school?

Simple. In many of the larger cities, you can't leave campus once school starts unless by parental permission.

Your praying disturbes my studying... there's a problem.

Have some earplugs then.

Have some earplugs then.
Got a nice roll of ducktape. I'll be glad to put it over your mouth.

Ah, but they are not timed to go off at exactly the same time.

All the difference in the world. :rolleyes:

Admit it, you're opposed to the idea because you're opposed to the ideology. In practice, the concept of blowing one massive horn once or twice per day or however many times is no different than doing it at the top of every goddamn hour. If anything, I'm sure most of us would rather have the horns go off a few times in tandem than listen to a cacaphony of church bells from ten thousand different denominational churches.

But yeah, I'll give you props for completely missing my point. I'd have thought a three-word comparison would be apt enough, but the vacuity of your intellect has made itself readily apparent with this response. Christians have bells to tell them when to pray or what time it is, regardless of the frequency of the sounding of said bells. Denouncing the equivalent Muslim practice on the grounds that they "all go off at once" holds no water because the reason it's being done is exactly the same as the reason you sound those damn bells all the time. Since it's identical in practice, there can be no legitimate bitching on the subject.

why should the atheists need to do things during prayer time that they can do at home? why can't everyone go home to do these or do them during the breaks at school?
Simple. In many of the larger cities, you can't leave campus once school starts unless by parental permission.
that's not answering the question. as i recall, christians do not have a set time for their prayers, so they can do them at home, rather than making the atheists sit around while they do it at school. or they could pray during breaks, which is far more appropriate

Got a nice roll of ducktape. I'll be glad to put it over your mouth.
try his hands, so he can't type :p

Yes Under God is an adition that was added during the cold war. Though i find word God refers to a being that is All Knowing, All Seeing, indistructable, and capible of Unlimited Comapssion who is ment to care for the Well being of his people.
I belive symbolises what the Goverment is Suposed to be.

For those who dont belive in god, i rember for a time Prayer was reduced to "A moment of Silence" for those who wanted to pray could pray in silence. and in some schools removed it all together.

Often times in legislature its often the loudest voice, not the Most popular voice that wins.

Because the goverment has to Accomadate the whole public, i belive Under God, Should be removed rather than Sacrificeing the entire pledge, because its still emplied.

If that sugestion came to court instead of Canceling the whole Pledge all together it would more than likely pass, i personaly would vote to have those 2 words removed and still keep the pledge than to loose the pledge all together.

I also belive this is just one slide along the slipery slope, to me it seems Most of George Bush's Plat form was based to Apeal to many Religious people. I think there is a deeper issue here than just those Two Words.

I belive In the bible it says the best people in the world will be corupted and in the end, be the first to be distroyed. i belive thats in Revolations but i have to go back and look, i spesificly rember reading "Men will be as gods. creating other men." as a sign of the last days, if you suck at guessing thats Human Cloaning another Rat Nest subject we dont have to talk about.

If the US Constitution isn't interpreted strictly, then what's the point? You could justify all sorts of bullshit with weak interpretation. I know our resident social engineers prefer that, but the point of a written constitution is its explicit nature. If you loosely interpret the Constitution, you might as well have no constitution at all. The US Constitution is a pact between the government and the people. A weak interpretation is an attempt to weasel out of that contract.

that's not answering the question. as i recall, christians do not have a set time for their prayers, so they can do them at home, rather than making the atheists sit around while they do it at school. or they could pray during breaks, which is far more appropriate

Actually, it answers the part about whether or not they can go home. Doing it on breaks is fine. Just so long as it is allowed.

Oh, and if Muslim's are allowed to pray, it should be allowed for everyone (So long as it something safe!), or no one at all. Otherwise the government is promoting a religion.


But yeah, I'll give you props for completely missing my point. I'd have thought a three-word comparison would be apt enough, but the vacuity of your intellect has made itself readily apparent with this response. Christians have bells to tell them when to pray or what time it is, regardless of the frequency of the sounding of said bells. Denouncing the equivalent Muslim practice on the grounds that they "all go off at once" holds no water because the reason it's being done is exactly the same as the reason you sound those damn bells all the time. Since it's identical in practice, there can be no legitimate bitching on the subject.

Really? I thought Church Bells rang:

On Sundays, at beginning and after services. So, you can deal with bells from 8:00 AM to 1:30 PM on Sundays, or everyday.

And you are talking about Clocktowers, whose bells go off every hour. Sorry, but they are completely different.

-=WARINING!!! THIS POST MAY CAUSE STIMULATION TO THE LOGIC CENTERS OF YOUR BRAIN, DON'T ATTEMPT TO READ IF YOUR ALERGIC TO REASON.=-
If the US Constitution isn't interpreted strictly, then what's the point? You could justify all sorts of bullshit with weak interpretation. I know our resident social engineers prefer that, but the point of a written constitution is its explicit nature. If you loosely interpret the Constitution, you might as well have no constitution at all. The US Constitution is a pact between the government and the people. A weak interpretation is an attempt to weasel out of that contract.

I hate this statement.
Thats like saying, well i know what i want my house to look like so why hire a drafter to make floor plans, why hire an electrition to wire it, why have a plumer map and lay pipes, why have an Apolster lay carpeting.
WTF is wrong with you.

Edit2.
When this nation was founded, it used wording that is nolonger used the same witch makes it difficult to interpret, rember when Gay ment Happy?
Due to the changes in our own language we must re-enterperate the laws to match our sosity. I rember when Homo-sexuals wernt thought of as a People like any other type of Spesific Race or Creed.

Edit.
There are ammendmenst, lots of them, to clarify anything that wasnt clarifyed at the begining. most are given by the bill of rights #10 that sates:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Source: http://www.billofrights.org/

Most churches use their bells as clocktowers also, so the distinction is of little value. I have a church right around the corner from me, and have seen many in my two decades on this planet. I think I know what I'm talking about.

Still, it'd be nice to see some answers. You can stop dodging our arguments any time you feel like it. It would be nice.

Actually, it answers the part about whether or not they can go home. Doing it on breaks is fine. Just so long as it is allowed.

Oh, and if Muslim's are allowed to pray, it should be allowed for everyone (So long as it something safe!), or no one at all. Otherwise the government is promoting a religion.
then what's your problem? even america's government isn't stupid enough to ban prayer during breaks. but you're talking about giving specific time for that, which is completely different. by what i gather, the muslims just wanted a room to pray in during breaks

I hate this statement.
Thats like saying, well i know what i want my house to look like so why hire a drafter to make floor plans, why hire an electrition to wire it, why have a plumer map and lay pipes, why have an Apolster lay carpeting.
WTF is wrong with you.

What the hell is the matter with you? How is that a workable or correct analogy?

I said that if you weakly interpret a constitution, there's no point in even having a constitution. Why is that unreasonable?

*Edit:

Edit.
There are ammendmenst, lots of them, to clarify anything that wasnt clarifyed at the begining. most are given by the bill of rights #10 that sates:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Source: http://www.billofrights.org/

Uh, I never said I oppose amendments. I said I oppose a weak interpretation. Since the US Constitution allows for the amendment process and gives detailed instructions, why would I object?

Also, the 10th Amendment is explicit, too. I don't mind strictly interpreting the 10th Amendment. You're not making a point I haven't already covered.

If the US Constitution isn't interpreted strictly, then what's the point? You could justify all sorts of bullshit with weak interpretation. I know our resident social engineers prefer that, but the point of a written constitution is its explicit nature. If you loosely interpret the Constitution, you might as well have no constitution at all. The US Constitution is a pact between the government and the people. A weak interpretation is an attempt to weasel out of that contract.

American and British law are both known for their reputations of common, judge-made (and flexibly interpreted) law. It's a nice way of avoiding the complex, beaurocratic wordings that can be found in some other European legal systems.

I hate this statement.
Thats like saying, well i know what i want my house to look like so why hire a drafter to make floor plans, why hire an electrition to wire it, why have a plumer map and lay pipes, why have an Apolster lay carpeting.
WTF is wrong with you.

Funny, I thought we hired Judges to work on interpreting the constitution. You know, professionals.

Oh but you forgot the great periods of tollerance called the Crusades and the Inquisition!

Oh but you forgot the great periods of tollerance called the Crusades and the Inquisition!

Or the modern day Jihad.


Maybe America does need more Christianity in the govt, and more of the crusade thinking to deal with todays problems :)

There is no such thing in the constitution. And if there is, I want you to show me. Copy the text out of the constitution, and tell me which section, subsection, and paragraph it is in.

Can I get this stickied?

Amendment I

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.

By this, the Congress cannot pass laws establishing a state religion, and cannot impede the free exercise of religion... So the state is seperated from affairs of religion. Seems rather clear cut to me.. that this is a separation of church and state, Whether it be to a degree some argue is questionable. Regardless Separation of Church and state exists in America today.

Here you go for your explaination for what is known as the "establishment clause" : http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

try his hands, so he can't type :p
Naw... I won't take away his right to type what he wants to (since freedom of speech, as currently interpreted, isn't mentioned in the Constutition, but the press is. I admit that blogs are in a really strange limbo if they're press or not, but what the hell, I'll bend the Constutituion JUST this once to allow him to continue to type).

American and British law are both known for their reputations of common, judge-made (and flexibly interpreted) law. It's a nice way of avoiding the complex, beaurocratic wordings that can be found in some other European legal systems.
you forgot australia, our constitution and law leaves alot open to judicial interpretation, that's why our system somehow still manages to work

you forgot australia, our constitution and law leaves alot open to judicial interpretation, that's why our system somehow still manages to work

No one cares about your convict-island. :p

If the US Constitution isn't interpreted strictly, then what's the point? You could justify all sorts of bullshit with weak interpretation. I know our resident social engineers prefer that, but the point of a written constitution is its explicit nature. If you loosely interpret the Constitution, you might as well have no constitution at all. The US Constitution is a pact between the government and the people. A weak interpretation is an attempt to weasel out of that contract.
The problem being of course that back in 1787, the framers, great bunch of guys they were, had no bloody idea what the nation they were creating would be like in 2005. Since it takes damn well near forever to get an amendment passed (made that way since amendments are pretty well set in stone) the idea of interpretation becomes vital to making sure things work. How do we use wording drafted over 200 years ago? How does a document that was written when the printing press was state of the art apply to the copyright laws of the digital age?

That's why.

There is seperation of church and state in the first amendment, thats plenty enough for me. Just because the words aren't said, doesn't mean its not implied, by both the wording and the sentiments of the founding fathers, when you look back.

American and British law are both known for their reputations of common, judge-made (and flexibly interpreted) law. It's a nice way of avoiding the complex, beaurocratic wordings that can be found in some other European legal systems.

The flexibility also allows for rampant abuse of power.

There's a difference between judge-made law and judge-made caselaw. (The US operates under the latter.) Judge-made caselaw: legislatures make laws; courts interpret those laws. Judges aren't free to violate precedent, only to offer their own interpretation on how a particular situation fits in to precedent. The only check on a judge's power in the American judicial system, though, is when another court overturns that judge's decision. Only legislators and the Supreme Court can reliably reverse precedent. In other words, that's not very flexible.

I prefer common law to civil law for a few reasons. (I won't explain those reasons here.) I also think written constitutions are important. If you're going to go through the trouble of drafting a written constitution, then there's no sense in weakly interpreting it. That makes the document obsolete. Contracts should be explicit as to notify all parties of their rights, limits and obligations. Although flexible governments can avoid bureaucracy, they can also avoid restrictions on their power.

Naw... I won't take away his right to type what he wants to (since freedom of speech isn't mentioned in the Constutition, but the press is. I admit that blogs are in a really strange limbo if they're press or not, but what the hell, I'll bend the Constutituion JUST this once to allow him to continue to type).

Odd. I see the second freedom is:

'or abridging the freedom of speech'

Most churches use their bells as clocktowers also, so the distinction is of little value. I have a church right around the corner from me, and have seen many in my two decades on this planet. I think I know what I'm talking about.

Still, it'd be nice to see some answers. You can stop dodging our arguments any time you feel like it. It would be nice.

See, this is where we are going to have so many different agreements. You grew up where church bells rang all the time, I grew up where they only rang on sundays and holidays.

Oh, and there is a distinction between a church bell being used as clock tower and a church bell.

A church bell is caphony of sound.

A clocktower is a pleasant tune, followed by the correct number rings for the number of hours.

What the hell is the matter with you? How is that a workable or correct analogy?

I said that if you weakly interpret a constitution, there's no point in even having a constitution. Why is that unreasonable?

*Edit:



Uh, I never said I oppose amendments. I said I oppose a weak interpretation. Since the US Constitution allows for the amendment process and gives detailed instructions, why would I object?

Also, the 10th Amendment is explicit, too. I don't mind strictly interpreting the 10th Amendment. You're not making a point I haven't already covered.

The point i was trying to get a crost, and any Literate person could see, is because the constitution is so vage, it requires constant interprtation, and its the goverments right to inturprate it. The ammendments are a Sign of the goverment doing just that, the Amendments 1-10 were required by the sother states before they would ratify the constitution, but maby that isnt something you've learned yet, seeing as it is something taught in the 12th grade (american Goverment)
You may want to actualy know everything before you start acting like you know everything. I dont know everything myself but its easy to see i know more about this than you.

The problem being of course that back in 1787, the framers, great bunch of guys they were, had no bloody idea what the nation they were creating would be like in 2005. Since it takes damn well near forever to get an amendment passed (made that way since amendments are pretty well set in stone) the idea of interpretation becomes vital to making sure things work. How do we use wording drafted over 200 years ago? How does a document that was written when the printing press was state of the art apply to the copyright laws of the digital age?

That's why.

I never said I had a problem with interpretation. I said I have a problem with weak interpretation. Despite what you've said, I stand by my original assertion. How do we use wording drafted over 200 years ago? Well, we look at the intent, we look at the exact wording, we look at historical precedent in caselaw, and then we apply the standard to a modern issue. Principles are timeless; their application is largely societal. You know, the whole "killing innocent people is wrong" principle has been around for thousands of years and yet we still know how to apply it to modern society.

The Founders identified general duties of the government and enumerated rights for it to defend. It's simply a matter of determining how technological and global changes fit into the framework of government powers and individual rights they set it. If a situation arises that either has no place in the structure they designed or where it's unclear how it ought to fit, we have the Congress to pass laws, the states to pass laws, and the amendment process. The amendment process only takes a few years in most cases.

Judges aren't free to violate precedent, only to offer their own interpretation on how a particular situation fits in to precedent.

If judges weren't "Free" to break Precedent... blacks would still be slaves, women would not have suffrage.... must i go on ?

See, this is where we are going to have so many different agreements. You grew up where church bells rang all the time, I grew up where they only rang on sundays and holidays.
Fair enough. But, I direct your attention now to the reason for the comparison, which until now has gone overlooked. If you do it again don't expect an answer.

Muslims want some loud device to tell them when to pray, and Christians apparently want the same thing. The only issue, then, appears to be the frequency of said ringing. You appear to be arguing that the Crhistian practice is not only the correct one, but that it is less intrusive to non-believers by only sounding once a week, leaving aside, for the moment, that the vast majority of them are clocktowers [see below]. Am I getting this right so far?

Oh, and there is a distinction between a church bell being used as clock tower and a church bell.
Yes, and if you read my latest post again, you'll note that I do not deny the distinction's existence. I've said its a worthless distinction since most churches are clocktowers too. I'm amazed how badly sidetracked we've become over such a meaningless issue.

If I want to know what time it is, I'll look at one of the dozens of fucking timepieces I have in my house. I don't want or need any damned bells telling me the time, as the time is already everywhere I look, thanks to the good folks at Westclox. Likewise, given the advent of alarm clocks, one could argue that ringing church bells don't serve any practical purpose either.

There is seperation of church and state in the first amendment, thats plenty enough for me. Just because the words aren't said, doesn't mean its not implied, by both the wording and the sentiments of the founding fathers, when you look back.


""I looted a New Orleans Safeway, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!""

Theres a quote pro-abortionists can use :) Would tend to sway me to their side

There is no such thing in the constitution. And if there is, I want you to show me. Copy the text out of the constitution, and tell me which section, subsection, and paragraph it is in.

Can I get this stickied?In article 140 of the German constitution, it calls upon articles 136, 137, 138, 139, and 141 of the 1919 constitution to deal with the rights and duties of religious communities, freedom of belief, and the protection of Sundays and holidays.
§137.1 reads:
There is no state religion/church.

In article 140 of the German constitution, it calls upon articles 136, 137, 138, 139, and 141 of the 1919 constitution to deal with the rights and duties of religious communities, freedom of belief, and the protection of Sundays and holidays.
§137.1 reads:
a good point, but these people are debating the american constitution. this issue only appears to happen in america

The point i was trying to get a crost, and any Literate person could see, is because the constitution is so vage, it requires constant interprtation, and its the goverments right to inturprate it. The ammendments are a Sign of the goverment doing just that, the Amendments 1-10 were required by the sother states before they would ratify the constitution, but maby that isnt something you've learned yet, seeing as it is something taught in the 12th grade (american Goverment)
You may want to actualy know everything before you start acting like you know everything. I dont know everything myself but its easy to see i know more about this than you.

Listen, you're barely literate, so if I were you, I wouldn't get all high and mighty about how I didn't understand your bullshit analogy.

Buddy, I've graduated college already with my bachelor's degree. I majored in American history, specifically the colonial to early republican periods. I minored in political science. How far along are you in your education?

1. The government was meant to be LIMITED by the Constitution; allowing the government to unlimit itself by changing constitutional interpretation is insane. You might as well just call them Constitution guidelines. Allowing the government to interpet its own powers is like allowing a business to reinterpret your employment contract. What you really mean is that the COURTS can interpret the Constitution. Yes, that's true, and they should follow a strict interpretation. We have the Constitution so that we know what's allowed and what isn't. If there's ever a dispute between two or more sides, then we can consult the rules to find out what's allowed.

2. The Bill of Rights is great, and yes, it was drafted and ratified because the Constitution didn't specifically protect liberty. But how does that refute what I SAID? I said amendments are perfectly reasonable. You're talking about the Constitution being vague and the need to amend it. I'm talking about the INTERPRETATION of the Constitution. Hell, what would be the freaking point of the Bill of Rights if the government could loosely interpret freedom of speech to mean the right to physically use your vocal cords? That's why strict interpretation is important.

So, if you're done condescending, high schooler, actually respond in a substantive way to my points.

Pot, meet kettle.

a good point, but these people are debating the american constitution. this issue only appears to happen in america
I'm aware of that, but the OP didn't point out which constitution ;)

Pot, meet kettle.
lolz, i really like this guy. "best mod ever!"

I'm aware of that, but the OP didn't point out which constitution ;)
a fair point, but the current debat is on the american constitution and it's problems. as i said, in most other countries, this is a non-issue

...

1. The government was meant to be LIMITED by the Constitution; allowing the government to unlimit itself by changing constitutional interpretation is insane. You might as well just call them Constitution guidelines. Allowing the government to interpet its own powers is like allowing a business to reinterpret your employment contract. What you really mean is that the COURTS can interpret the Constitution. Yes, that's true, and they should follow a strict interpretation. We have the Constitution so that we know what's allowed and what isn't. If there's ever a dispute between two or more sides, then we can consult the rules to find out what's allowed.

...


Condencending, Yah thats what i was doing... [/Sarcasim]
This is the last time i will be respoinding to your childish Messages.

The Costitution was Designed as the Foundation for our goverment and was worded in such a way to be able to re-enterprited as the times change.

To Compensate for that power there was a set of Checks and Ballances you oviously have no faith in.

It is my Right to Dissagree with you, and yours to dissagree with me, you have no right insulting me personaly however. that is not protected.

my final respnce to you ends here.

What good is a BA if you only use it as a refrance to argue like a child on the internet. Presedent Bush has a BA from Yale(Or was it harvord...) and i dont put much stalk in that mans oppion because he to acts often like a child.

You two [KaiRo Main and Orangians] might want to think about not talking to each other anymore. If this gets much worse I might have to do something about it.

Fair enough. But, I direct your attention now to the reason for the comparison, which until now has gone overlooked. If you do it again don't expect an answer.

Muslims want some loud device to tell them when to pray, and Christians apparently want the same thing. The only issue, then, appears to be the frequency of said ringing. You appear to be arguing that the Crhistian practice is not only the correct one, but that it is less intrusive to non-believers by only sounding once a week, leaving aside, for the moment, that the vast majority of them are clocktowers. Am I getting this right so far?

Yes and no. Yes, I think the ringing of churchbells on sunday is less intrusive, however, that doesn't necessarily make it right. In fact, I know several churches that don't even ring there bell. The bell has become only needed on holidays, and as another symbol.

Condencending, Yah thats what i was doing... [/Sarcasim]
This is the last time i will be respoinding to your childish Messages.

The Costitution was Designed as the Foundation for our goverment and was worded in such a way to be able to re-enterprited as the times change.

To Compensate for that power there was a set of Checks and Ballances you oviously have no faith in.

It is my Right to Dissagree with you, and yours to dissagree with me, you have no right insulting me personaly however. that is not protected.

my final respnce to you ends here.

What good is a BA if you only use it as a refrance to argue like a child on the internet. Presedent Bush has a BA from Yale(Or was it harvord...) and i dont put much stalk in that mans oppion because he to acts often like a child.

Kairo, do us all a favor. Learn to spell and use proper grammar most of the time so we can somewhat understand your posts. And Kairo, Orangians seriously pwned you.

Kairo, do us all a favor. Learn to spell and use proper grammar most of the time so we can somewhat understand your posts.Berating people for their spelling is a bad method of arguementation.

Condencending, Yah thats what i was doing... [/Sarcasim]
This is the last time i will be respoinding to your childish Messages.

The Costitution was Designed as the Foundation for our goverment and was worded in such a way to be able to re-enterprited as the times change.

To Compensate for that power there was a set of Checks and Ballances you oviously have no faith in.

It is my Right to Dissagree with you, and yours to dissagree with me, you have no right insulting me personaly however. that is not protected.

my final respnce to you ends here.

What good is a BA if you only use it as a refrance to argue like a child on the internet. Presedent Bush has a BA from Yale(Or was it harvord...) and i dont put much stalk in that mans oppion because he to acts often like a child.

You know, this is hilarious. I originally made an intelligent post explaining the importance of strictly interpreting written constitutions. You responded by saying you "hate[d]" my argument. You capped off your post with, "WTF is wrong with you?"

So, I replied, "What the hell is wrong with you?" Remember? After that I explained why your analogy made no sense or, at least, it didn't apply to my own argument.

You then proceeded to lecture me, tell me how I lacked the rudimentary knowledge of a senior in high school who has taken American Government, implied that I'm stupid because any "literate" person could have understood your inane analogy, and lastly claimed that you know more than I do about this subject. So, again, please tell me how anything I said was undeserved or childish. From my perspective, you've been the only childish individual in this debate.

Also, maybe you consider a bachelor's degree worthless, but since you didn't cite your own credentials, I can only presume you don't have one. When you attend or graduate college, you can come back here and tell me why my bachelor's degree in the very subject we're arguing isn't useful.

The Constitution was NOT worded to be re-interpreted as the times change. The Constitution was designed to be AMENDED as the times change. The amendment process is difficult in order to prevent abuse of power as much as possible. See, you're just proving to me that you don't know anything about American government. You learned two or three phrases from your AmGov class like "separation of powers" and "checks and balances," but you obviously don't know what these concepts mean or how they apply to our discussion. Note: they don't.

I've explained numerous times why strict interpretation is vital to the written constitution. Interpretation is the means by which you understand the written words. Amendment means changing the written words. A strict interpretation still allows for the Constitution to change; it just prevents the government from overstepping its constitutional limits. That's no guarantee that there won't be an abuse of power, but checks and balances, separation of powers, the written constitution, the amendment process and strict interpretation all make it more difficult.

I'm tired of explaining law and history to high school kids. If you imply that I am stupid or unqualified for this debate one more time, I'm going to compose a list of every single factual, grammatical, punctuation and spelling error you've made in this thread.

Berating people for their spelling is a bad method of arguementation.

Not if the complaint is simply that he can't understand the guy. I admit, I find it difficult to get through a post when there's no attempt at paragraph and sentence structure. Spelling errors also irritate me, as well as poor grammar and punctuation. All of the above are signs of an unclear thinker.

Berating people for their spelling is a bad method of arguementation.

So? I like to be able to read what I am arguing against without getting a monstrous headache. Oh, and much goodies to Orangians.

You can barely understand him, heck, I couldn't even understand his analogy on the first reading.

Not if the complaint is simply that he can't understand the guy. I admit, I find it difficult to get through a post when there's no attempt at paragraph and sentence structure. Spelling errors also irritate me, as well as poor grammar and punctuation. All of the above are signs of an unclear thinker.It was too close to being an attack for it to be a complaint. I get just as irritated at times, but there's nice ways of asking for that and only really necessary in a few cases.

There is no such thing in the constitution. And if there is, I want you to show me. Copy the text out of the constitution, and tell me which section, subsection, and paragraph it is in.

Can I get this stickied?

:headbang: :headbang:

OK. Your premise is faulty. "The wall of separation of Church and State" is simply an metaphor used for the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses for at least 200 years.

The First Amendment reads (in part):

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

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 [First] amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means in more detail, 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.'[/QUOTE]

You know, this is hilarious. I originally made an intelligent post explaining the importance of strictly interpreting written constitutions. You responded by saying you "hate[d]" my argument. You capped off your post with, "WTF is wrong with you?"

So, I replied, "What the hell is wrong with you?" Remember? After that I explained why your analogy made no sense or, at least, it didn't apply to my own argument.

You then proceeded to lecture me, tell me how I lacked the rudimentary knowledge of a senior in high school who has taken American Government, implied that I'm stupid because any "literate" person could have understood your inane analogy, and lastly claimed that you know more than I do about this subject. So, again, please tell me how anything I said was undeserved or childish. From my perspective, you've been the only childish individual in this debate.

Also, maybe you consider a bachelor's degree worthless, but since you didn't cite your own credentials, I can only presume you don't have one. When you attend or graduate college, you can come back here and tell me why my bachelor's degree in the very subject we're arguing isn't useful.

The Constitution was NOT worded to be re-interpreted as the times change. The Constitution was designed to be AMENDED as the times change. The amendment process is difficult in order to prevent abuse of power as much as possible. See, you're just proving to me that you don't know anything about American government. You learned two or three phrases from your AmGov class like "separation of powers" and "checks and balances," but you obviously don't know what these concepts mean or how they apply to our discussion. Note: they don't.

I've explained numerous times why strict interpretation is vital to the written constitution. Interpretation is the means by which you understand the written words. Amendment means changing the written words. A strict interpretation still allows for the Constitution to change; it just prevents the government from overstepping its constitutional limits. That's no guarantee that there won't be an abuse of power, but checks and balances, separation of powers, the written constitution, the amendment process and strict interpretation all make it more difficult.

I'm tired of explaining law and history to high school kids. If you imply that I am stupid or unqualified for this debate one more time, I'm going to compose a list of every single factual, grammatical, punctuation and spelling error you've made in this thread.


Would you care to try explaining law and history to a practicing lawyer?

The Supreme Court obviously hasn't agreed with your "strict interpretation" during the last 200 years. And it never will.

The Founding Fathers themselves were against overly strict interpretation of the Constitution.

BTW, you can claim to have any degree you want. And I can claim to be Justice O'Connor. No claims to authority should be respected.

So? I like to be able to read what I am arguing against without getting a monstrous headache. Oh, and much goodies to Orangians.

You can barely understand him, heck, I couldn't even understand his analogy on the first reading.

It's rather crass. Especially when you consider this is an INTERNATATIONAL board where English is a second languarge.

How many languages do you speak and write fluently?

Hell most americans can't even write their own language properly. Hell I am probably the worst speller here..... :D

Really? This is important. See, if a little thing like Pray can be taken from schools, and our Pledge was nearly rewritten because of one father in California, what is to stop someone from doing something drastic, like making up rules as to how Congress should Run?

See the whole unfortunate thing here is you try to misinterpret the founders' words when they wrote the ammendment to pass your damned agenda. In the SAME manner as those idiots trying to grab our guns saying its only for an "organized militia" in the second ammendment even though they entirely disregard the fact that "milita" at that time was any male citizen able to take up arms.

Both of these positions is liberalism which is dangerous.

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

This means TWO things. 1. The US government can not respect the establishment of ANY religion. This means in public schools even if there is a religious bias and establishment that refuses to stop forcing the children to prayer, the government can not respect their practice. It must put an end to it. The underlined text is called in more learned circles the "no establishment clause"

It ALSO states, that if the studen body VOLENTARILY begins to pray, that the government can not intervene. However if people are being forced or brainwashed into a religion, that is unconstitutional in PROGRAMS FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS TAXPAYERS.

Our pledge was also re-written to put "under god" mind you. Do keep in mind if you are going to bitch about it being ammended, that your argument falls short in the fact it was ammended to begin with to ESTABLISH a religion which is frankly unconstitutional if you look at it technically. Its up to parents to notify kids and their teachers however if they do not want their kids saying under god or being forced to say it.

You need to learn more about the founding founders and WHY they put this clause in. It has to do with the problem religious establishments create when they overstep their rights and try to become to damned powerful.

Religion and god are the place of the parent teaching their child. Not the parents teaching OTHER children that are not of their own.

There is no such thing in the constitution. And if there is, I want you to show me. Copy the text out of the constitution, and tell me which section, subsection, and paragraph it is in.

Can I get this stickied?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

First amendment

That is what the term seperation of church and state is reffering to

Your point? The fact of the matter is that Seperation of Church and State has been used to declare many things unconstitutional, when in fact, they aren't.
are you suggesting that you know the constitution better than 200+ years worth of supreme court justices?

where did you get this extra knowledge?

Is Belator trying to say that not worshipping "the Church" is unconstitutional?

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

First amendment

That is what the term seperation of church and state is reffering to
true. but Congress hasn't made a law respecting an establishment of religion. so what are you people always whining about the separation of church and state for?

true. but Congress hasn't made a law respecting an establishment of religion. so what are you people always whining about the separation of church and state for?

It is called liberty of creed. And in order to prevent the possible adcoming of a theocracy in the USA, very possible in these days.

If judges weren't "Free" to break Precedent... blacks would still be slaves, women would not have suffrage.... must i go on ?

Actually, judges don't create amendments. I believe what you mean to say is that there would still be seperate but equal and bans against interracial marriage.

The 1st Amendment also doesn't explicitly say that you can write articles denouncing the government, but it is implied.

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

If you cannot see the implication of those two clauses, there is little hope for you.

true. but Congress hasn't made a law respecting an establishment of religion. so what are you people always whining about the separation of church and state for?

Putting 'under God' is clearly respecting an establishment of religion. People say it's a harmless phrase but have you heard the reactions of some of the kids when children have decided to the leave that clause out when saying the pledge? What about be forced to hand out pieces of paper that say you believe and trust in God? Is this respecting an establishment of religion? Yes, of course it is. It is certainly reasonable to expect that a person handing out such pieces of paper agrees with the writing upon it. Personally, I see no need for my religion to ever be addressed by the government. I can only associating my religion with the government and government officials as a detriment given the recent state of affairs surrounding our government (by recent I mean more than the current administration). I'd rather have representatives that uplift my religion for other than political purposes and I find offense that my religion, Christianity, is often associated with the current administration and the actions of said administration.

I have no problem informing people of my beliefs on my own, I don't need the help of political entities trying to further demonstrate the difference between the US and 'those filthy atheist commies'.

Suggesting that only people who hate religion would be offended by these practices is ridiculous (not referring to anyone in particular). My children will be instructed to pray in private as per the teachings of Jesus. They will be instructed to never use God when referring to matter of government and never use government when referring to matters of God. Requiring my children to behave any differently than that is not respecting my right to the free practice of my religion.

But what I am suggesting is that when you go out of your way to target a certain religion while promoting another religion, it is unconstitutional.

http://www.atheists.org/ftpfiles/Press_Releases/20031117.pdf

How many of you remember that on the news? Not the Press Release, but the article itself?

So, you can say that there is a Seperation of Church and State all you want, but when stuff like that happens, it really just comes down to a prejudice.

But what I am suggesting is that when you go out of your way to target a certain religion while promoting another religion, it is unconstitutional.

http://www.atheists.org/ftpfiles/Press_Releases/20031117.pdf

How many of you remember that on the news? Not the Press Release, but the article itself?

So, you can say that there is a Seperation of Church and State all you want, but when stuff like that happens, it really just comes down to a prejudice.

Um, so you're suggesting because the NYPD violated the US Constitution that Federal Government should do it too. As you noted people are complaining about that use as well. They will likely win and the book will be removed permanently. That really is a weak argument especially considering the vast number of violations that demonstrate Christian support. If there is any religion that is prejudicially supported it is Christianity. To suggest otherwise requires turning a blind eye to the facts.

Really? Show me.

Really? Show me.

Show you what? That our money says 'In God We Trust'? That in a court of law, until recently, it was required to swear on the Bible that you would tell the truth (which goes directly against my religion where I feel it is idolotry to swear on a book, even the Bible)? That the pledge says 'one nation under God'? That we haven't had a non-Christian president this century? That our President stands up and proudly proclaims that God put him into office? That in the military we had only a Christian chaplain? That the biggest argument against given marriage rights to gays and lesbians is that the Christian religion that is the largest religion in this country says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman? That there are so many instances of Christian support by government bodies in the US that when we started actually enforcing seperation of Church and State that Christians began to feel attacked (given that this thread demonstrates that fact)?

Which of those is it that you would like me to demonstrate? Which of those have not been witnessed by almost everyone in the US? Which of those are you confused about?

It's obvious that Christianity is not under attack, it is just loosing the government support it has enjoyed unconstitutionally for the last fifty years in response to the Cold War.

Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''


Whoopse. So much for the intent of the founders being only to prevent the establishment of religion :rolleyes:

From Davis v. Beason (1890):
"The first amendment to the constitution, in declaring that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect."

I was going to write up a big speech about how stupid both sides of this arguement are being, the overgeneralizations, veiled flames and trolls, and so forth, but y'know, it never makes a differnce.
*sigh*
There is nothing new under the sun.

Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''


Whoopse. So much for the intent of the founders being only to prevent the establishment of religion :rolleyes:

From Davis v. Beason (1890):
"The first amendment to the constitution, in declaring that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect."

So... you find two quotes that don't argue against seperation of church and state, but just talk about the first amendment in their view.

I'm not seeing any of them saying its ok for religion to be represented in government buildings, etc. They simply don't mention that either way. So if they say nothing, lets look at the FF's who do talk about that part of the intent(especially jefferson, who, y'know, wrote it).

Besides, the second part does come down on god on money, in the pledge, etc. Its support of religions tenets, to put god on there. Not fair to religions without god, with many gods, etc.

So... you find two quotes that don't argue against seperation of church and state, but just talk about the first amendment in their view.

I'm not seeing any of them saying its ok for religion to be represented in government buildings, etc. They simply don't mention that either way. So if they say nothing, lets look at the FF's who do talk about that part of the intent(especially jefferson, who, y'know, wrote it).

Besides, the second part does come down on god on money, in the pledge, etc. Its support of religions tenets, to put god on there. Not fair to religions without god, with many gods, etc.
You really should learn how to read.

I'm on your side.

Tell you what, you evangelicals can post the 10 commandments on any federal building you want -- if you also agree to posting

Suras from the Qur'an
Commentary from the Talmud
Verses from the Book of Mormon
Verses from the Bhagavad-gita
A poem from the Tao Te Ching
One of the lectures of Confucius
Verses from the Buddhist Pali Canon
Any papal teaching from a Catholic catechism

After all, we can't favor one religion over the others, so if you want a place of honor for your religion, the other religions all get one too.

There is no such thing in the constitution. And if there is, I want you to show me. Copy the text out of the constitution, and tell me which section, subsection, and paragraph it is in.{snip}
Well, it seems that there is nothing to argue about here.

There is no exact, precise, quote in the Constitution.

"Separation of Church & State" is a brief, catchy, & surprisingly accurate, summary of how the Constitution operates with regard to religion.

Undoubtedly you have been beaten over the head with this as an end-all be-all answer in a debate & are fed up with it.

Simply stating that these exact words do not exist in the Constitution is not good enough as a counter argument. Sure it's true, a tautology really; but, no one is going to toss at you:

1) 4000 volumes of case history,
2) The entire Lexis/Nexis database,
3) The grand committee of 9 wise guys ( Wanna win the debate? Kill your opponent with tedious nerds! Muh huh hah HAAA! ),
4) The kitchen sink.

All you are going to get is a brief summary, at least here on NS.

For the greatest fidelity & detail, we're gonna need an entire dedicated site the size of Jolt - at least.

There is no such thing in the constitution. And if there is, I want you to show me. Copy the text out of the constitution, and tell me which section, subsection, and paragraph it is in.

Can I get this stickied?


Hmm, I would think that first amendment might have something to do with it: "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."

In other words, there is no state-established religion, and people are free to worship how and where they might, or NOT to worship at all. If a religious law WERE to be made, then clearly it would violate the right of the people to worship as they please.

I believe you have there the reasoning for "separation of church and state" although Jefferson's letter about it can be found here along with its constitutional relevance: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Really? This is important. See, if a little thing like Pray can be taken from schools, and our Pledge was nearly rewritten because of one father in California, what is to stop someone from doing something drastic, like making up rules as to how Congress should Run?

ORGANIZED prayer -- that is, led by a staff member -- was prevented in public schools. Children can pray in any school they like so long as they are not disruptive, and often a moment of silence is given for this reason. Teachers may lead prayers in parochial schools, of course.

Funny you should mention the Pledge being rewritten -- it actually was rewritten during the Cold War to insert the phrase "Under God," and certainly without the knowledge and permission of its author. http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

The original pledge as written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy was: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

One could argue removing that phrase is nothing more than an editorial decision to return the Pledge to a more original form.

Odd. I see the second freedom is:

'or abridging the freedom of speech'



See, this is where we are going to have so many different agreements. You grew up where church bells rang all the time, I grew up where they only rang on sundays and holidays.

Oh, and there is a distinction between a church bell being used as clock tower and a church bell.

A church bell is caphony of sound.

A clocktower is a pleasant tune, followed by the correct number rings for the number of hours.


I don't live where Melkor does, and churchbells indeed ring before and after services, Sunday-Sunday, at all hours of the day. Oddly, my church also plays a pleasant tune and the chimes for the hour too.

Oh, and since you mentioned NY, yes, I am from the five boroughs.

There is no such thing in the constitution. And if there is, I want you to show me. Copy the text out of the constitution, and tell me which section, subsection, and paragraph it is in.

Can I get this stickied?
The separation of Church and State is not in the constitution, It's in the BIBLE!!

mat 22:21
mark 12:17
luke 20:25

1Cor Rom 14:13 Christians are told to cater to the beliefs of others and not force others to do things they don't believe in. Yes, the example is meat to idols, but what is the principle being taught.....1 Cor 8:5 acknowledges those who believe in other Gods....That is followed by instruction not to offend the conscience of those people. ie, Christians are not to be demanding, they are to be humble and yield to the beliefs of others. If it doesn't go against your religion but it may go against the beliefs of others....don't do it.

Rom 13 At the same time, Christians are to obey all civil authority. To break the civil laws is the same as breaking God's law. Think about that when you speed down the road. Rom 14:18 Christians follow both God and men, ie human law. Showing a separation.

The school prayer debate has never been much of an issue to me. I would appreciate it if someone could explain why it is such an issue. I really get the impression that people just pick sides to upset the other side.

There is plenty of down time at school in which someone can pray, even if there isn't a set time to do so. This is especially true at the start of school. So having a set prayer time is unnecessary.

I do not understand why someone should feel offended by having a time for prayer. You can just study or sit quietly and you can pray to whatever god you choose to. Most bow their heads and many close their eyes when praying so the ones praying probably wouldn't even notice that you were not.

The school prayer debate has never been much of an issue to me. I would appreciate it if someone could explain why it is such an issue. I really get the impression that people just pick sides to upset the other side.

There is plenty of down time at school in which someone can pray, even if there isn't a set time to do so. This is especially true at the start of school. So having a set prayer time is unnecessary.

I do not understand why someone should feel offended by having a time for prayer. You can just study or sit quietly and you can pray to whatever god you choose to. Most bow their heads and many close their eyes when praying so the ones praying probably wouldn't even notice that you were not.
a lot of people don't realize that students aren't really being prevented from praying in school (how would you stop them anyway) it is more to keep out a mandated prayer time.
When my mom was in grade school they would come into class and say the pledge and then they would all recite the Lord's prayer.
this is what they are trying to keep from happening. I can understand why as it would invariably discriminate against some (if not most) of the students.

I do think though sometimes things go too far. I got suspended from school for wearing a Christain shirt once because it was "making the atheist uncomfortable" I called the ACLU for help but they ended up siding with the athiest who wanted to sue me for trying to push my beliefs on her. :rolleyes: It was just a T-shirt, not like I tried to sue the goth kids for "freaking me out" or something, that would be dumb.

You really should learn how to read.

I'm on your side.

To be fair, I'm blind and I have ADD. I have to have people read the forum to me, and I don't pay attention to them sometimes. Its not my fault :(

I called the ACLU for help but they ended up siding with the athiest who wanted to sue me for trying to push my beliefs on her. :rolleyes: It was just a T-shirt, not like I tried to sue the goth kids for "freaking me out" or something, that would be dumb.
That seems odd. In the past they have defended student's individual right to express their beliefs (off the top of my head there is the one where they defended a girl's right to have a religous message in her 'quote' in the Yearbook) so that seems a little off.

That seems odd. In the past they have defended student's individual right to express their beliefs (off the top of my head there is the one where they defended a girl's right to have a religous message in her 'quote' in the Yearbook) so that seems a little off.

Doesn't surpise me in the least. The ACLU has often taken side against public expression of Christian faith. The ACLU is basically just a liberal organization with a liberal agenda. I applaud all they have done for free speach, but they still have their own agenda that they will push whenever possible.

I think they try to always go with the minority and they veiw Christains in the majority. (at least around here they do) They even sued a town because they had a cross on thier city seal. It wasn't so much a cross as the seal was divided into 4 sections. They also sued the fair grounds because they had a 90 ft cross up, even though it wasn't on state property (it was on private property across the street) they said it was so close that it might confuse someone. and they sued the owner of an office building downtown because at night he leaves on the lights in the shape of a cross, he won that one though since it was his own property and all the tennants that left thier lights on did so voluntarily.

I have many more examples but I have to go....

Could you tell me what town this and/or give links to the results of these cases because I find them a little far-fetched. They have no basis for suing a private owner for expressing faith, nor any basis for preventing you from wearing a t-shirt that is in no way obscene. The ACLU often supports Christians when their individual rights are violated. I simply can't see how they weren't in this case or how the ACLU would back someone else. Please give us more information.

Forced conversion is for religions that can't make it through their own merits. If you have to get the government to enforce school prayer and laws against gay rights, your religion has obviously fallen out of favor. I would say this indicates something wrong with the religion, not the government.

a lot of people don't realize that students aren't really being prevented from praying in school (how would you stop them anyway) it is more to keep out a mandated prayer time.
When my mom was in grade school they would come into class and say the pledge and then they would all recite the Lord's prayer.
this is what they are trying to keep from happening. I can understand why as it would invariably discriminate against some (if not most) of the students.

I do think though sometimes things go too far. I got suspended from school for wearing a Christain shirt once because it was "making the atheist uncomfortable" I called the ACLU for help but they ended up siding with the athiest who wanted to sue me for trying to push my beliefs on her. :rolleyes: It was just a T-shirt, not like I tried to sue the goth kids for "freaking me out" or something, that would be dumb.

I have trouble believing this story, but, if true, it is unfortunate

The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has taken many cases defending Christians -- including Christian T-shirts in school.

I think they try to always go with the minority and they veiw Christains in the majority. (at least around here they do) They even sued a town because they had a cross on thier city seal. It wasn't so much a cross as the seal was divided into 4 sections. They also sued the fair grounds because they had a 90 ft cross up, even though it wasn't on state property (it was on private property across the street) they said it was so close that it might confuse someone. and they sued the owner of an office building downtown because at night he leaves on the lights in the shape of a cross, he won that one though since it was his own property and all the tennants that left thier lights on did so voluntarily.

I have many more examples but I have to go....


Please provide reliable links. Some of these stories sound vaguelly familiar, but you are leaving out or distorting critical facts.

The truth of the matter is the ACLU defends Christianity all the time. Your view is just slanted.

Please provide reliable links. Some of these stories sound vaguelly familiar, but you are leaving out or distorting critical facts.

The truth of the matter is the ACLU defends Christianity all the time. Your view is just slanted.

My take on the matter as well. The poster may just have actually been in a rush but it appears to me to be just vague enough to leave us unable to validate the cases or find out important facts that would shed light on the actual reasoning behind the cases. The lack of information leaves them fairly useless.

BTW, Sumamba Buwhan is trying to get a hold of you to be a mediator on a LGBT forum. See this thread - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9713856#post9713856

:headbang: :headbang:

OK. Your premise is faulty. "The wall of separation of Church and State" is simply an metaphor used for the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses for at least 200 years.

The First Amendment reads (in part):

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

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 [First] amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means in more detail, 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.'

I was waiting for you. :)

That seems odd. In the past they have defended student's individual right to express their beliefs (off the top of my head there is the one where they defended a girl's right to have a religous message in her 'quote' in the Yearbook) so that seems a little off.

Now, see, it is absolutely possible for us to agree. And the world hasn't ended either.

Really? This is important. See, if a little thing like Pray can be taken from schools, and our Pledge was nearly rewritten because of one father in California, what is to stop someone from doing something drastic, like making up rules as to how Congress should Run?

Umm...I think this covers it:
Amendment I

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.

No law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.

While it does not say "seperation of Church and State" that is exactly what it is there to address.

Prayer should not be allowed in schools if the school receives federal funding, otherwise, they are respecting an establishment of religion. Putting "under god" in the pledge and In God We Trust on our money is also respecting an establishment of religion.

Both should be removed.

"But", says you, "what about free speech?" To which I respond, one does not cancel out the other. You can do whatever you want privately, but you cannot make it the way for all the population.

sorry it has taken me so long to respond about the ACLU cases
my husband had a dr appt that I needed to be with him for (we found out that they are going to have to remove his large intestine :()

city of edmonds seal you have to scroll down a lot (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1996/jan_feb96/newsnotes.html) here is the text if you don't feel like looking though

Court: Remove Cross From Town Seal
A November ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove a cross from a city seal has Edmond, Oklahoma, residents in an uproar.

Rev. Wayne Robinson, a Unitarian-Universalist minister, was one of four plaintiffs who sued the city with ACLU help.

Since the ruling, Edmond residents have urged the city council to take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court. Some have even begun to advocate a national letter-writing campaign and have called for a constitutional amendment to protect the "overgrown artistical rendering of a plus sign."

If Edmond loses, some supporters have suggested that the city refuse to remove the cross stating, "How could they really enforce removal if we choose not to do so?




February 28, 2003


A concrete cross on the state fairgrounds in Oklahoma City, Okla. has been removed after a local man complained that it’s presence there violated the ban on government endorsement of religion, reports the Oklahoman.

The cross at State Fair Park went unnoticed for decades – indeed, no one seems to know why or when it was placed there – until Jim Worrell of Oklahoma City and the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Madison, Wisc. complained.

City Manager Jim Couch ordered the cross removed for fear of being sued.

The cross now stands on church property and someone attempted to sue the church.
sorry that I was mistaken about it being on private property in the first place, there have been so many lawsuits about the cross that I get them mixed up sometimes.

as far as the bulding with the cross lights I don't know if it actually made it to court and it happened intthe 80s so I am having trouble finding anything on it
It was owned by Bank One though.

and my t-shirt thing never did go to court my lawyer met with their lawyers and we got it taken care of without lawsuit.

I think they try to always go with the minority and they veiw Christains in the majority. (at least around here they do) They even sued a town because they had a cross on thier city seal. It wasn't so much a cross as the seal was divided into 4 sections. They also sued the fair grounds because they had a 90 ft cross up, even though it wasn't on state property (it was on private property across the street) they said it was so close that it might confuse someone. and they sued the owner of an office building downtown because at night he leaves on the lights in the shape of a cross, he won that one though since it was his own property and all the tennants that left thier lights on did so voluntarily.

I have many more examples but I have to go....

Just a few things to pick through here...

Christians are in the majority. More than 65% of the US files their census information as Christian.

Fair Grounds are usually in the ownership of a county, that county is provided the land by the state, hence, they are state land. However, I agree, that people should be allowed to put crosses up if it is a part of an exhibit during an event. So long as it isn't a permanent structure.

As far as the office building...it's his building, he can do what he wants. Kind of a funny idea though, it would be neat if people tried other designs (then again, with the price of energy these days, maybe it's not a good plan).

Just my thoughts...

Surely if a law is wrong it should be changed. Wether the Constitution says so or not. It's not the end of the world, there can always be change.

Just a few things to pick through here...

Christians are in the majority. More than 65% of the US files their census information as Christian.

Fair Grounds are usually in the ownership of a county, that county is provided the land by the state, hence, they are state land. However, I agree, that people should be allowed to put crosses up if it is a part of an exhibit during an event. So long as it isn't a permanent structure.

As far as the office building...it's his building, he can do what he wants. Kind of a funny idea though, it would be neat if people tried other designs (then again, with the price of energy these days, maybe it's not a good plan).

Just my thoughts...
yeah I corrected some of the flaws in my original post in a later post.
I probably have a slanted veiw of the ACLU because they seem to always be starting crap around here. I can admit that. I know I am not without bias. ;)

I could start off on a whole tangent about how these things really don't have anything to do with "separation of church and state" because congress isn't enacting any laws that are "forcing" people to adhere to a certain religion, or about how many fundamentalist Christains see these lawsuits as attacking thier right to freely practice thier religion. but that would probably start a huge flame war that I am unprepared to deal with today.

I am not worried about it too much.

btw about Christians being the majority I know many people who when asked by someone will claim to be a Christian but really aren't, they just want to be left alone. that and the whole group of people who think that being a Christian basically means you aren't evil and you believe in God.

sorry it has taken me so long to respond about the ACLU cases
my husband had a dr appt that I needed to be with him for (we found out that they are going to have to remove his large intestine :()

city of edmonds seal you have to scroll down a lot (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1996/jan_feb96/newsnotes.html) here is the text if you don't feel like looking though






The cross now stands on church property and someone attempted to sue the church.
sorry that I was mistaken about it being on private property in the first place, there have been so many lawsuits about the cross that I get them mixed up sometimes.

as far as the bulding with the cross lights I don't know if it actually made it to court and it happened intthe 80s so I am having trouble finding anything on it
It was owned by Bank One though.

and my t-shirt thing never did go to court my lawyer met with their lawyers and we got it taken care of without lawsuit.

Um, one is the removal of a cross from public property and the other is the removal of a Christian cross from ONE OF THE FOUR QUADRANTS. The Edmond case is not about the cross that divides the seal into four quadrants. It is because, according to court documents, one of the quadrants shows a Christian cross.

http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct95/94-6237.wpd.html
"At issue in this case is the official seal of the City of Edmond, Oklahoma. The circular seal contains four quadrants, of which one depicts a steam engine and oil derrick, one depicts the Old North Tower,(2) one depicts a covered wagon with the number 1889,(3) and the last quadrant depicts a Christian cross."

These cases are not as you represented them.

Odd side note: Guess who sat on the city council of Edmond, OK, and is an active member in their politics today and at the time of the case? Michael Brown, former head of FEMA. Small world, no?

Um, one is the removal of a cross from public property and the other is the removal of a Christian cross from ONE OF THE FOUR QUADRANTS. The Edmond case is not about the cross that divides the seal into four quadrants. It is because, according to court documents, one of the quadrants shows a Christian cross.

http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct95/94-6237.wpd.html
"At issue in this case is the official seal of the City of Edmond, Oklahoma. The circular seal contains four quadrants, of which one depicts a steam engine and oil derrick, one depicts the Old North Tower,(2) one depicts a covered wagon with the number 1889,(3) and the last quadrant depicts a Christian cross."

These cases are not as you represented them.
I stand corrected. I am sorry I got mixed up. I have had major stress today.
thank you for finding out the truth for me. :) sorry to have misrepresented even though it was an accident.

I stand corrected. I am sorry I got mixed up. I have had major stress today.
thank you for finding out the truth for me. :) sorry to have misrepresented even though it was an accident.

I think it would be helpful to place an edit on your original post. I don't mind accurately painting the ACLU in a bad light, but inaccurately is a whole other ballgame. It's fine that it was an accident, but in that event it's worth correcting.

Odd side note: Guess who sat on the city council of Edmond, OK, and is an active member in their politics today and at the time of the case? Michael Brown, former head of FEMA. Small world, no?
yeah. I know. bad day for edmond. :( believe me he is atypical of the standard Oklahoman. I am ashamed that he is even associated with us.

yeah I corrected some of the flaws in my original post in a later post.
I probably have a slanted veiw of the ACLU because they seem to always be starting crap around here. I can admit that. I know I am not without bias. ;)

I could start off on a whole tangent about how these things really don't have anything to do with "separation of church and state" because congress isn't enacting any laws that are "forcing" people to adhere to a certain religion, or about how many fundamentalist Christains see these lawsuits as attacking thier right to freely practice thier religion. but that would probably start a huge flame war that I am unprepared to deal with today.

I am not worried about it too much.

btw about Christians being the majority I know many people who when asked by someone will claim to be a Christian but really aren't, they just want to be left alone. that and the whole group of people who think that being a Christian basically means you aren't evil and you believe in God.


The "level" of christianity is a whole other ball of wax. My grandmother, an old Irish Catholic, believes that protestants aren't true christians. My wife's a protestant (Lutheran), and you can imagine the fun we have at family get togethers as I am an atheist (my wife and I do not discuss religion with each other). So I won't get into the who's christian and who's not debate. :)

As for the idea of these things being minor. I think the issue, at least from my point of view, is that if you let the little things go they build up and up until the little guy (like myself) has no choice but to conform to the rules and regulations of the United States of Christianity.

You might laugh, but with our current people in power, it's not too surreal a concept.

The "level" of christianity is a whole other ball of wax. My grandmother, an old Irish Catholic, believes that protestants aren't true christians. My wife's a protestant (Lutheran), and you can imagine the fun we have at family get togethers as I am an atheist (my wife and I do not discuss religion with each other). So I won't get into the who's christian and who's not debate. :)

As for the idea of these things being minor. I think the issue, at least from my point of view, is that if you let the little things go they build up and up until the little guy (like myself) has no choice but to conform to the rules and regulations of the United States of Christianity.

You might laugh, but with our current people in power, it's not too surreal a concept.
I'm equally worried that it will become the United States of What Appears to be Christianity But Isn't. And my fear isn't just around memorizing the acronym. Government endorsement of religion is as dangerous to the religion as it is to the government and other religions. I agree that we have to fight the little fights because by the time those big fights occur it takes to much power and mobilization to make a difference.

I find it interesting reviewing this thread that with all of the sniping back and forth about the little nitpicky thingies concerning the seperation of church and state issue that noone has mentioned that it says "Congress shall make no laws" but nothing about what the courts may or may not do.

I personally belive the real problem is the fact that the Constitution gives "NO" authority to the Court to make laws. If you have been watching the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts you know that this is ungoing discussion at the highest levals of the government. Things really haven't changed much in 225 years, have they?

I find it interesting reviewing this thread that with all of the sniping back and forth about the little nitpicky thingies concerning the seperation of church and state issue that noone has mentioned that it says "Congress shall make no laws" but nothing about what the courts may or may not do.

I personally belive the real problem is the fact that the Constitution gives "NO" authority to the Court to make laws. If you have been watching the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts you know that this is ungoing discussion at the highest levals of the government. Things really haven't changed much in 225 years, have they?

Wow, what laws are the courts making that relate to this topic? We are talking about the job of the courts to interpret the first amendment. What does making law have to do with that?

*Hands Candlelar a 'furthest from the point' award*

I'm equally worried that it will become the United States of What Appears to be Christianity But Isn't. And my fear isn't just around memorizing the acronym. Government endorsement of religion is as dangerous to the religion as it is to the government and other religions. I agree that we have to fight the little fights because by the time those big fights occur it takes to much power and mobilization to make a difference.

Bingo! (but you are right about the acronym...the USWACBI just doen't roll off the tongue)

My wife, who is Christian, agrees that the government needs to stay out of the church. Many people do.

I find it interesting reviewing this thread that with all of the sniping back and forth about the little nitpicky thingies concerning the seperation of church and state issue that noone has mentioned that it says "Congress shall make no laws" but nothing about what the courts may or may not do.

I personally belive the real problem is the fact that the Constitution gives "NO" authority to the Court to make laws. If you have been watching the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts you know that this is ungoing discussion at the highest levals of the government. Things really haven't changed much in 225 years, have they?

Umm...right...that's the whole point really. The Supreme Court is not meant to make laws, but to interpret them.

Things have changed immensely in 225 years. Do you think the initial Supreme Court would have okayed aborting, or allowed minorities (incl. women) to vote?

The separation of Church and State is not in the constitution, It's in the BIBLE!!

mat 22:21
mark 12:17
luke 20:25

1Cor Rom 14:13 Christians are told to cater to the beliefs of others and not force others to do things they don't believe in. Yes, the example is meat to idols, but what is the principle being taught.....1 Cor 8:5 acknowledges those who believe in other Gods....That is followed by instruction not to offend the conscience of those people. ie, Christians are not to be demanding, they are to be humble and yield to the beliefs of others. If it doesn't go against your religion but it may go against the beliefs of others....don't do it.

Rom 13 At the same time, Christians are to obey all civil authority. To break the civil laws is the same as breaking God's law. Think about that when you speed down the road. Rom 14:18 Christians follow both God and men, ie human law. Showing a separation.

Lets give a round of applause for taking stuff at random out of the Bible for an insane context. I read thoroughly each of those passages. The passages from the Gospel I'll give you those, since they are all exactly the same.

But your epistolary quotes are terrible. For one the quotes from Romans 14 has to do with unclean animals. The principle has to do with unclean animals not separation of God and Government. And in 1st Corinthians Paul is not acknowledging other Gods, he's saying that no matter what idols get sacrificed to, remember there is only one true God. That is an entirely different discussion.

Actually to bring us back to task there is a verse from the Bible which plainly states, fear God and honor the King. I apologize for not having the chapter and verse. It tells us to put God first so Belator's anger at all of the athiest mumbo jumbo is accurate. We shouldn't be taking this from the secular government since God is higher anyway.

Also in the Bible it states that God has given us government and that he has establishede the rulers who rule over us. So no matter what the constitution says we can be rest assured that God will protect us, his faithful children from the clutches of those who wish us malintent. Once again I apologize for not having the exact chapter and verse and book. But I believe both are paraphrased from the Epistles of Paul.

God Bless!

Umm...right...that's the whole point really. The Supreme Court is not meant to make laws, but to interpret them.

Things have changed immensely in 225 years. Do you think the initial Supreme Court would have okayed aborting, or allowed minorities (incl. women) to vote?

Dang, I wish people would stop saying that. Sufferage was granted by an amendment to the US Constitution. Better examples are disbanding seperate but equal (though the amendment that was used to do that didn't exist) and for legalizing interracial marriage (though again the amendment didn't exist at the time that the court used to uphold this right).

unfortunatly, I don't have time to read the whole thread. so forgive if this was rehashed.

While I do awknowledge that the phrase "Seperation of Church and State" is President Jefferson's interpretation in a private letter to a Baptise Minister. however, I've heard that the original letter to the President was the Minister afraid that the government would eradicate the Baptise Minestry (which was small and newly formed) and that the phrase was used to say that the Government would not inhibit any Church as well as be used by other established Religions prohibit the forming as well as the growth of new religions.

The Black Forest:
"You need a lesson about the life and times of Jefferson and Madison.

Never mind the fact the Constitution was not designed to be solely about absolutes.....

To quote Madison:

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"..."
_______________________________________________________________
Well, that explains why preists are being indicted on rape and molestation charges...(being sarcastic).

Plus, it's still not in the Constitution.

Lets give a round of applause for taking stuff at random out of the Bible for an insane context. I read thoroughly each of those passages. The passages from the Gospel I'll give you those, since they are all exactly the same.

But your epistolary quotes are terrible. For one the quotes from Romans 14 has to do with unclean animals. The principle has to do with unclean animals not separation of God and Government. And in 1st Corinthians Paul is not acknowledging other Gods, he's saying that no matter what idols get sacrificed to, remember there is only one true God. That is an entirely different discussion.

Actually to bring us back to task there is a verse from the Bible which plainly states, fear God and honor the King. I apologize for not having the chapter and verse. It tells us to put God first so Belator's anger at all of the athiest mumbo jumbo is accurate. We shouldn't be taking this from the secular government since God is higher anyway.

Also in the Bible it states that God has given us government and that he has establishede the rulers who rule over us. So no matter what the constitution says we can be rest assured that God will protect us, his faithful children from the clutches of those who wish us malintent. Once again I apologize for not having the exact chapter and verse and book. But I believe both are paraphrased from the Epistles of Paul.

God Bless!

Um, can I take that award back and reissue it.

Romans 13 - 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

This says to respect the government because it is allowed to exist by God. It says by disrespecting the government you are disrespecting God. This was specifically quoted by the person you quoted. If you read all the passages they quoted how could you miss this.

Romans 14:13-18 - 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

The passage in Romans 14 is not about clean and unclean food but about respecting the beliefs of others. It says that you are to believe that no food is unclean but if your brother believes it is unclean treat it as such out of respect. This is not at all about unclean animals, it is about respecting the rights of those that are not Christians.

1 Corinthians 8 - 7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

Again you need to read the whole passage. This says that you are to respect the beliefs of others. It says if a person believes it is sinful to eat that which was sacrificed at the temple and he sees you eating it, you may encourage him to defy his beliefs and sin. This passage tells you to respect his beliefs and not openly defy them. You seem to have missed the point of this passage altogether.

The quoted gospels are three different ways of attacking the same story. They all say that what falls under faith and what falls under government are different and give to government as is proper and to faith as is proper. It certainly supports a seperation of the two since Jesus specifically points out that the jurisdiction of the two are different. Otherwise it would say, give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God and give to both what belongs to both. Jesus leaves room for no overlap between the two.

sorry it has taken me so long to respond about the ACLU cases
my husband had a dr appt that I needed to be with him for (we found out that they are going to have to remove his large intestine :()

city of edmonds seal you have to scroll down a lot (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1996/jan_feb96/newsnotes.html) here is the text if you don't feel like looking though






The cross now stands on church property and someone attempted to sue the church.
sorry that I was mistaken about it being on private property in the first place, there have been so many lawsuits about the cross that I get them mixed up sometimes.

as far as the bulding with the cross lights I don't know if it actually made it to court and it happened intthe 80s so I am having trouble finding anything on it
It was owned by Bank One though.

and my t-shirt thing never did go to court my lawyer met with their lawyers and we got it taken care of without lawsuit.

I hope it worked out so that you are allowed to wear the T-shirt. They really have no right to take that away from you. In fact if I were still in school I would wear the T-shirt once a week.

Surely if a law is wrong it should be changed. Wether the Constitution says so or not. It's not the end of the world, there can always be change.

Yes, thats what amendments are for

But there is a Catch-22 in that we can't establish the "religion" of Atheism.


It's built on a series of decisions regarding the 'establishment' clause. It's part of that whole 'living document' thing, you can't always go all the way back for a reset.

Or try this experiment-okay, we've integrated church and state, but-it's the snake handlers and now your kids have to handle snakes in the 4th grade. Still sound great?

State is for government, freedom of religon means you go to the church of your choice, believe what you choose and no one else uses the government to make your kids handle snakes.

But there is a Catch-22 in that we can't establish the "religion" of Atheism.
Nondiscrimination isn't the 'establishment' of atheism. The lack of religion is not atheism. Considered and rejected by the courts multiple times.

But there is a Catch-22 in that we can't establish the "religion" of Atheism.

Lack of religion is not atheism. The state has the job of not making any decisions regarding the validity of religious claims. They are literally to be agnostic toward the existence of God or gods in general and the validity of any other unprovable claims of divinity or divine right, etc.

But there is a Catch-22 in that we can't establish the "religion" of Atheism.
Well, except that Atheism is not a religion. Nor does not including religous teachings automaticly default to teaching that there is no god, gods, or goddesses. In fact, not speaking on the matter leaves the question up to the individual to explore and practice.

EDIT: Wow, I'm like that slow line backer guy that want desperately to be on TV so he's the last guy to pile on a tackle that's clearly already handled...you guys where quick...

Well, except that Atheism is not a religion. Nor does not including religous teachings automaticly default to teaching that there is no god, gods, or goddesses. In fact, not speaking on the matter leaves the question up to the individual to explore and practice.

Now that's twice.

Now that's twice.
Don't get excited. If I can find common ground with Eutrusca, well...you where really just a bump in the road. One run in a doesn't make a rivalry.

Don't get excited. If I can find common ground with Eutrusca, well...you where really just a bump in the road. One run in a doesn't make a rivalry.

Did you see my post at the end of all that and the thread where I asked people to examine our disagreement from the outside. I think we merely demonstrated that it is sometimes hard to see through the eyes of another or to step back and look at things objectively. I think we were both guilty of that. I think it's likely we'll agree more than disagree, but either way I think you'll find that incidents where things elevate to that point are few and far between with me.

I hope it worked out so that you are allowed to wear the T-shirt. They really have no right to take that away from you. In fact if I were still in school I would wear the T-shirt once a week.
I used to wear it once a week but then when they told me that it "offended" her, I went out and bought more so that I could wear a Christian t-shirt everyday.
(not very Christian motivation I know, but I am only human.) :D

Um, can I take that award back and reissue it.

Romans 13 - 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

This says to respect the government because it is allowed to exist by God. It says by disrespecting the government you are disrespecting God. This was specifically quoted by the person you quoted. If you read all the passages they quoted how could you miss this.

Romans 14:13-18 - 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

The passage in Romans 14 is not about clean and unclean food but about respecting the beliefs of others. It says that you are to believe that no food is unclean but if your brother believes it is unclean treat it as such out of respect. This is not at all about unclean animals, it is about respecting the rights of those that are not Christians.

1 Corinthians 8 - 7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

Again you need to read the whole passage. This says that you are to respect the beliefs of others. It says if a person believes it is sinful to eat that which was sacrificed at the temple and he sees you eating it, you may encourage him to defy his beliefs and sin. This passage tells you to respect his beliefs and not openly defy them. You seem to have missed the point of this passage altogether.

The quoted gospels are three different ways of attacking the same story. They all say that what falls under faith and what falls under government are different and give to government as is proper and to faith as is proper. It certainly supports a seperation of the two since Jesus specifically points out that the jurisdiction of the two are different. Otherwise it would say, give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God and give to both what belongs to both. Jesus leaves room for no overlap between the two.


THANK YOU!! I was beginning to think I was typing in Aramaic or something. I have tried to present the Bible arguement every few pages or so and was beginning to think no one else owned a bible. It totally amazes me that "Conservative Christians" (much like the Pharisees Luke 11:42) don't have a clue what their own scripture says. They figure it says whatever they want it to say.

Christianity is the most simple of religions. It only has two commandments. Mt 22:37
Mark 12:30
Love God, Love all others

How is forcing someone to do something against his conscience showing LOVE for him?

Umm...right...that's the whole point really. The Supreme Court is not meant to make laws, but to interpret them.

Umm..right...that is the whole point "really". Please show me where the Supreme Court was charged with that responsibilty in the Constitution. I relize that this battle was fought out between Madison and Jefferson and Jefferson lost due to leaving office. The fact is we're still in the same place as we where then. Madison was wrong and Jefferson right. The fact that the Federalists have controlled the argument all of these years doesn't make them correct.

Things have changed immensely in 225 years. Do you think the initial Supreme Court would have okayed aborting, or allowed minorities (incl. women) to vote?

This has been answered again and again. But then you're not addressing my argument at all. What right did the Supreme Court have to ok these issues then anymore than they have now.

Wasn't the idea, 3 equal branchs of goverment? Who controls the Courts? What happens when the Courts decide against the will of the legislative and Executive (elected by the people)? Exactly where does this power come from? It's not in the Constitution.

And as long as I'm playing devils advocate here, why can't a state or city pass a law concerning religion? Again, the Constitution says "Congress" shall make no laws... I would think that would mean the Congress of the United States and would 'not' include the individual states and citys. Again, refer to the 9th and 10th amendments that 'noone' wants to read.

This has been answered again and again. But then you're not addressing my argument at all. What right did the Supreme Court have to ok these issues then anymore than they have now.

Wasn't the idea, 3 equal branchs of goverment? Who controls the Courts? What happens when the Courts decide against the will of the legislative and Executive (elected by the people)? Exactly where does this power come from? It's not in the Constitution.

And as long as I'm playing devils advocate here, why can't a state or city pass a law concerning religion? Again, the Constitution says "Congress" shall make no laws... I would think that would mean the Congress of the United States and would 'not' include the individual states and citys. Again, refer to the 9th and 10th amendments that 'noone' wants to read.

The courts are controled by the fact that they cannot act until a case comes before them. They cannot initiate any action on their own. They can also be impeached if they go beyond the powers granted to them. They are also dependent on the executive to enforce their rulings as they have no power to execute them. Some presidents have defied the courts, but it is very risky because "contempt of court" could be an impeachable offense by the president. The president who does that needs to be sure he would be backed by the senate.

The courts took the power to declare an act "unconstitutional". Marbury vs. Madison It is accepted "case law" and has not been challenged since. After all, what good is a constitution if the legislature can pass whatever it wants. Someone has to say when they go out of bounds and don't follow the constitution. Without that power the courts are worthless. What other reason do the courts have to exist?

The problem with the states passing such a law is every state is required to have a "bill of rights" in it's constitution before it is allowed to join the union.
Which means most of these are decided in state courts. And it is required to provide equal rights to the citizens of other states:

Section 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Thanks to Goodlifes. A very good answer. You mentioned that the Courts really have no enforcment power other than the contempt citation. I believe Regan ignored the Courts ruling concerning a requirment for him to release some funds and his answer was 'let them enforce it' and of course they couldn't. Still it seems to me that there should be some spelled out method for overriding the Court by the combined legislative and Exec branch. It also seems that case law causes great problems in the fact that decisions can be made that are incorrect and then are relied on from that point on. It's the old logic argument, your answers are right based on your logic but your basic primise is wrong so your answer is 'wrong'. Round and round we go.

As to why do the Courts excist, I would submit to resolve issues between individuals not between the legislative and the exec branchs. I do relize this has been decided in case law, BUT personally disagree and would see the Courts powers severly restricted. The Constitution does give authority to form laws concerning the Courts to the legislative branch so I see no Constitutional issue with writing laws concerning the Court to include a way of overriding its decisions.

This has been answered again and again. But then you're not addressing my argument at all. What right did the Supreme Court have to ok these issues then anymore than they have now.

Wasn't the idea, 3 equal branchs of goverment? Who controls the Courts? What happens when the Courts decide against the will of the legislative and Executive (elected by the people)? Exactly where does this power come from? It's not in the Constitution.

And as long as I'm playing devils advocate here, why can't a state or city pass a law concerning religion? Again, the Constitution says "Congress" shall make no laws... I would think that would mean the Congress of the United States and would 'not' include the individual states and citys. Again, refer to the 9th and 10th amendments that 'noone' wants to read.

Yes, except there have been amendments since then. Are you familiar with them? Specifically the one that says that all of the limitations of government in the bill of rights are extended to the state and city governments. Have you heard of that little amendment or does that not matter because it wasn't there when US Constitution was written.

The courts are controled by the fact that they cannot act until a case comes before them. They cannot initiate any action on their own. They can also be impeached if they go beyond the powers granted to them. They are also dependent on the executive to enforce their rulings as they have no power to execute them. Some presidents have defied the courts, but it is very risky because "contempt of court" could be an impeachable offense by the president. The president who does that needs to be sure he would be backed by the senate.

The courts took the power to declare an act "unconstitutional". Marbury vs. Madison It is accepted "case law" and has not been challenged since. After all, what good is a constitution if the legislature can pass whatever it wants. Someone has to say when they go out of bounds and don't follow the constitution. Without that power the courts are worthless. What other reason do the courts have to exist?

The problem with the states passing such a law is every state is required to have a "bill of rights" in it's constitution before it is allowed to join the union.
Which means most of these are decided in state courts. And it is required to provide equal rights to the citizens of other states:

Section 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Actually they didn't take that power, it was given to them by the Constitution.

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party

That means that when someone brings up a case where some party feels that the US violates the the contract put into place between the Federal government and the states, counties, cities and people that the judicial branch has the ability to adjudicate said differences. This requires them to be able to declare laws unconstitutional. It's outlined clearly in Clause 1.

It also seems that case law causes great problems in the fact that decisions can be made that are incorrect and then are relied on from that point on. It's the old logic argument, your answers are right based on your logic but your basic primise is wrong so your answer is 'wrong'. Round and round we go.

As to why do the Courts excist, I would submit to resolve issues between individuals not between the legislative and the exec branchs. I do relize this has been decided in case law, BUT personally disagree and would see the Courts powers severly restricted. The Constitution does give authority to form laws concerning the Courts to the legislative branch so I see no Constitutional issue with writing laws concerning the Court to include a way of overriding its decisions.

The idea of using case law is to make the law consistant. If case law wasn't refered to one person would get life and another 6 months for the same offense. Or cases would be decided randomly acording to the whims of a judge. What would be illegal in one case would be legal in another if there were any gray area. By saying, "it has been determined this way for X number of years", everyone gets equal protection. Can the original ruling be wrong? Of course, "take separate but equal" for instance. It was the standard ruling for many years. Then in Brown vs. Board of Education the Supreme Court said that the old ruling was wrong. From now on we will have integration. At the time, legislatures, governors, and presidents and the majority of the people disagreed. If you were up for election you would not make such a ruling. So did the courts "legislate law" or "interpret law" or "interpret the constitution"? This is where the conservatives started thinking about the "courts making law" from the bench".

After I posted, I thought I should be more specific about the role of the courts. At the bottom level, the role of the courts is to resolve conflict between entities. Judges at that level do very little interpretation. Most good lawyers can read the briefs and tell you how the judge will rule. That's why the majority of cases are settled out of court. Those that do go to court are those where there is a question about the facts. The jury or judge has to say who is telling the truth. BUT, at the appeals level, facts have been decided. The judges at that level question if the judge or jury made the correct ruling based on "case law" or if rights were denied. By the time a case gets to the Supreme Court, it's not who's right or wrong, it's all about interpretation of the constitution. The Supreme Court gets about 15,000 cases appealed to it each year. They will take less than 100 the rest stand on the ruling of the lower court. They take the ones that have the biggest constitutional questions or will effect the most rulings by other judges. Nothing is trivia at that level.