User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:05:55 PM EDT
[#1]
Unfortunately that's probably one of the things they will get to.
Some would like to eradicate all mention of God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:26:00 PM EDT
[#2]
Originally Posted By Gun Guru: when they dont mind it being on their money? Double priorites or what? GG Who says "they" don't mind it being on the money? I can understand why someone would mind, if for instance they were atheist, and raising their kids atheist, and then the public school system is telling their kid that there is a God, and making them recite it. I personally don't care, but I can see why it would bug peeople who are atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. to essentially have the government make their kids say there is a God. I also don't see why the people who want to keep it make such a big deal - after all it was added in the 1950s as a reaction to the evil Godless communists of the Cold War. It's not like it's from the Revolutionary War or anything like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 10:07:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Because while people are going nuts over the pledge the Right Wing can do things that really destroy civil rights.
Like this: [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_vouchers_18[/url] and this: [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_drug_tests_7[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 10:56:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Because while people are going nuts over the pledge the Right Wing can do things that really destroy civil rights. Like this: [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_vouchers_18[/url] and this: [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_drug_tests_7[/url] I'm being forced at gunpoint to pay for the education of other people's children, in violation of my constitutional rights. The details of how they distribute my money to other people is the least of my problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 6:29:54 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: I'm being forced at gunpoint to pay for the education of other people's children, in violation of my constitutional rights. The details of how they distribute my money to other people is the least of my problems. That's ok. We religious people have been forced at gunpoint to pay property taxes for our children to be taught atheism and agnoticism in public schools. Sure, we can send out kids to private school, but we still pay for your kids education. Why should the government be able to take my money from me, and teach children something I don't approve of? Bottomline, education is very much like the pledge-children are either taught that they are "under God" or they are taught implicitly that they are "under no God" (which was also forbidden in the recent pledge ruling). None of us should have to pay for public education. This is one thing that Jefferson was VERY wrong about, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 6:41:53 AM EDT
[#6]
The phrase "In God We Trust" on the back of US coins is protected since it has been in use for such a long period of time.
The courts say that it is a historical phrase rather than a religious phrase. Av. EDIT: from the BEP website [url]http://www.bep.treas.gov/document.cfm/18/107[/url] Not really about the coins, but the motto is not going away soon. In God We Trust The use of the national motto on both U.S. coins and currency notes is required by two statutes, 31 U.S.C. 5112(d) (1) and 5114(b), respectively. The motto was not adopted for use on U.S. paper currency until 1957. It first appeared on the 1935G Series $1 Silver Certificate, but didn't appear on U.S. Federal Reserve Notes until the Series 1963 currency. This use of the national motto has been challenged in court many times over the years that it has been in use, and has been consistently upheld by the various courts of this country, including the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as 1977. The Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice intend to actively defend against challenges to the use of the national motto. In 1992, a challenge was filed and successfully defeated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 6:53:17 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Because while people are going nuts over the pledge the Right Wing can do things that really destroy civil rights. Like this: [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_vouchers_18[/url] and this: [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_drug_tests_7[/url] Vouchers GOOD! Drug Testing....potentially bad, but right now it's voluntary if you wish to engage in School extracurricular activities. You want to play, obey the rules, if you don't like the rules, don't play. It's when they try to make it mandatory to ALL students playing or not that it goes too far. [devil] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 6:53:47 AM EDT
[#8]
Actually this guy that filed the suit started with a suit to get "In God We Trust" off our money. And I believe it's been tried before.
Then he figured he'd have better success with the Pledge. And get this, when he first filed the suit his daughter wasn't even in school yet! Should have been thrown out right then and there due to he didn't have grounds to file the law suit. Now something ArmdLbrl is going to like. I've been researching this issue ever since they announced the ruling the other day. The 9th Circut didn't rule the Pledge was unconstitutional. Only the act of Congress in 1954 inserting the words "under God" was declared unconstitutional. And as always, with any law and as we are so fond of saying when it comes to the Bill of Rights, you have to go back and read what the author of the law actually intended the law to say or represent. The words "under God" were inserted for a religious agenda. Personally I will not say the Pledge without those words being in there. If this ruling holds up and the words are taken out, I will continue to say them everytime I say the Pledge. The courts may be able to prevent them from being in there, but they can't stop you from saying them. BTW, the 9th District Court has placed their ruling on hold until it has been reviewed on appeal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 6:54:21 AM EDT
[#9]
Originally Posted By Gun Guru: when they dont mind it being on their money? Double priorites or what? GG The guy who brought the school law suit originally wanted to do this, but research convinced him the pledge would be easier. The money is next..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 6:56:04 AM EDT
[#10]
Not going to happen. See my above post.
Av. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 6:56:11 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Vouchers GOOD! Drug Testing....potentially bad, but right now it's voluntary if you wish to engage in School extracurricular activities. You want to play, obey the rules, if you don't like the rules, don't play. It's when they try to make it mandatory to ALL students playing or not that it goes too far. [devil] I agree with the vouchers. But I disagree with your statement about drug testing. It's a random drug screening. They should have probably cause before they ask you to take it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 6:57:01 AM EDT
[#12]
None of us should have to pay for public education. Yes! Yes! and Yes! some more! If I hear one more slack-jawed mouth-breather tell me I should have to pay for his kids' schooling "because it benefits the whole community" I swear to Crom I'm going ballistic on his feeble-minded ass. The courts say that it is a historical phrase rather than a religious phrase Right. Whores, politicians and ugly buildings all get respectable if they just hang around long enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:10:59 AM EDT
[#13]
Uhhh...
Isn't atheism the religion (or lack thereof) of Communism? Is this more of that socialism crap that is festering on the West Coast? Grrrrrr....[pissed] -White Horse |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:14:33 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Vouchers GOOD! Drug Testing....potentially bad, but right now it's voluntary if you wish to engage in School extracurricular activities. You want to play, obey the rules, if you don't like the rules, don't play. It's when they try to make it mandatory to ALL students playing or not that it goes too far. [devil] I agree with the vouchers. But I disagree with your statement about drug testing. It's a random drug screening. They should have probably cause before they ask you to take it. If you're choosing to play on a school team or be in a school club, you are representing your school. If the school wants to weed out drug abusers on a team/activity that is not an obligation of ALL, but only those who choose to be involved, then that's their choise. Those kids don't have to go play if the fact they may be screened for drugs offends them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:15:54 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Uhhh... Isn't atheism the religion (or lack thereof) of Communism? Is this more of that socialism crap that is festering on the West Coast? Grrrrrr....[pissed] -White Horse I don't believe there are any real atheist. Why? Who do they call out to when they're having sex?[:D] Seriously, just because a person is an atheist doesn't mean they are a communist. I know several Libertarians that are atheist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:25:42 AM EDT
[#16]
how about federal law redifine god, such as god could be a general reference such as budda, jesus, alla, your dog, or whatever you consider to be a higher power, for some a door knob would actuauly be the higher power.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:29:06 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: The courts say that it is a historical phrase rather than a religious phrase Right. Whores, politicians and ugly buildings all get respectable if they just hang around long enough. ROTFLMFAO!! [:D] You're an absolute genius. On the whole voucher thing, I'm vehemently opposed to it until childless people get a refund. Why in the world do people with kids get to say "if I pull my kid out of public school, I should get money back because I'm not using it" - but people who don't even have kids get squat!?! HELLO! Since I don't have kids at all, my non-existent kids don't use public school either. If the logic is that you shouldn't have to pay for public school if you don't use it, then people without children should get a refund before anyone talks about vouchers or refunds for anyone else. I also want to pay less for my car, and have people with kids pay more for theirs, since I don't need all the child-safety crap. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:30:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Now something ArmdLbrl is going to like. I've been researching this issue ever since they announced the ruling the other day. The 9th Circut didn't rule the Pledge was unconstitutional. Only the act of Congress in 1954 inserting the words "under God" was declared unconstitutional. Sweep, you've restored my hope for all AR15.commers. The past few days I've noticed a lot of saber-rattling and extremely vocal grumbling over this decision about 'how the Pledge of Allegiance is now un-Constitutional'. I'm glad people are actually doing the research and finding out the truth. And when you actually research the facts, you will find that the 9th Circuit's ruling was, personal opinions and morals aside, the correct one. It's one thing to understand the ruling and disagree, but entirely another to just despise it based on heresay information. The words "under God" were inserted for a religious agenda. Personally I will not say the Pledge without those words being in there. If this ruling holds up and the words are taken out, I will continue to say them everytime I say the Pledge. The courts may be able to prevent them from being in there, but they can't stop you from saying them. Exactly, because there is always that [i]OTHER[/i] part of the 1st Amendment. Say it if you want, go right ahead. BTW, the 9th District Court has placed their ruling on hold until it has been reviewed on appeal. Yup. And it will likely be overturned - at least, that's my prediction. This ruling has caused such an uproar that politicians on both sides have already brought out the dreaded [b]religion=patriotism[/b] card. And, mark my words, this will cause our freedoms to further spiral downward. And these same people today with their irrational decrees of spite over this decision will merrily cheer us along the path to our own destruction. When I was a kid, I wasn't raised on any religion. My parents were largely agnostic. I said the pledge, 'under God' and all. As a kid, I didn't think about how the evil cruel government was 'attempting' to corrupt my heathen soul. You don't think about these things when you are a kid. As I grew up, my religious beliefs changed from one thing to another. Now, I'm non-religious. The words 'under God' do not necessarily bother me, and my opinion is that the words of the Pledge do not change their meaning by the addition or omission of them. To each their own. the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:31:49 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Originally Posted By Gun Guru: when they dont mind it being on their money? Double priorites or what? GG The guy who brought the school law suit originally wanted to do this, but research convinced him the pledge would be easier. The money is next..... I can care less about saying god or not, big deal. If that ass is offended by what his money reads, he can give it to me!!! That's my favorite way to read god, when I count my money! [devil] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:34:46 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: how about federal law redifine god, such as god could be a general reference such as budda, jesus, alla, your dog, or whatever you consider to be a higher power, for some a door knob would actuauly be the higher power. I think their arguments on this issue is that establishes monotheism and leaves out people who worship multiple gods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:44:48 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: how about federal law redifine god, such as god could be a general reference such as budda, jesus, alla, your dog, or whatever you consider to be a higher power, for some a door knob would actuauly be the higher power. Well consider this; while the word "god" may be a great general reference for some, it is still a specific reference and name to other people. God is a loaded word. If you want a general reference, use a word without double meaning to different people. "One nation, under a doorknob, with liberty and justice for all..." Of course, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Like DK-Prof, it doesn't bother me personally, but I can see how it may irritate others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:59:24 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: If you're choosing to play on a school team or be in a school club, you are representing your school. If the school wants to weed out drug abusers on a team/activity that is not an obligation of ALL, but only those who choose to be involved, then that's their choise. Those kids don't have to go play if the fact they may be screened for drugs offends them. It isn't a matter of whether or not they are drug users. It's a matter of the 4th Amendment. You shouldn't be allowed to just perform random drug tests. And for some people trying to obtain scholarships, they need to be involved in after school activities, many of which are not sports related. What are they to do if the disagree with this on the basis of the 4th? Say, oh well, guess I'll just give up the scholarship. Provided of course 99.99% will just go ahead and take the drug test, it's leading down the road of erosion of our 4th Amendment rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 8:03:38 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: If you're choosing to play on a school team or be in a school club, you are representing your school. If the school wants to weed out drug abusers on a team/activity that is not an obligation of ALL, but only those who choose to be involved, then that's their choise. Those kids don't have to go play if the fact they may be screened for drugs offends them. It isn't a matter of whether or not they are drug users. It's a matter of the 4th Amendment. You shouldn't be allowed to just perform random drug tests. And for some people trying to obtain scholarships, they need to be involved in after school activities, many of which are not sports related. What are they to do if the disagree with this on the basis of the 4th? Say, oh well, guess I'll just give up the scholarship. Provided of course 99.99% will just go ahead and take the drug test, it's leading down the road of erosion of our 4th Amendment rights. Don't go to Gubberment shkools. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 8:06:17 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: ...the public school system is telling their kid that there is a God, and making them recite it. ...the government make their kids say there is a God. No one has made anybody say the pledge. There is no requirement in school or government to recite the pledge. It is strictly optional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 8:09:04 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: The courts may be able to prevent them from being in there, but they can't stop you from saying them. Exactly, because there is always that [i]OTHER[/i] part of the 1st Amendment. Say it if you want, go right ahead. the_reject "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 8:15:24 AM EDT
[#26]
Sweep:
What I mean was: Aren't all Communist = Atheist? Not all Atheist = Communist. -White Horse |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 8:18:43 AM EDT
[#27]
Dontcha know????
If we can get God off our money, and out of our pledge, suddenly God is powerless to demand we live as He wishes for us to. Suddenly He's no longer sovereign over the universe, and we can live however we want. [}:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 8:20:59 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Dontcha know???? If we can get God off our money, and out of our pledge, suddenly God is powerless to demand we live as He wishes for us to. Suddenly He's no longer sovereign over the universe, and we can live however we want. [}:D] YHBT. the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 8:28:59 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Don't go to Gubberment shkools. [:D] Good point! And that's exactly why when I have kids they will go to a private school or be home schooled! The latter nullifying my scholarship argument. [:(] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 8:30:49 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Sweep: What I mean was: Aren't all Communist = Atheist? Not all Atheist = Communist. -White Horse Understood. [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 8:36:24 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: Don't go to Gubberment shkools. [:D] Good point! And that's exactly why when I have kids they will go to a private school or be home schooled! The latter nullifying my scholarship argument. [:(] Yes, Private or Home School is what's best for parents who really care about their kids education. I do think that there are scholarships and/or grants that are avail to these students, if not by gooberment, than by private groups. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 9:48:28 AM EDT
[#32]
If we can get God off our money, and out of our pledge, suddenly God is powerless to demand we live as He wishes for us to. Suddenly He's no longer sovereign over the universe, and we can live however we want. Good idea! Yeah! I....uh...wait: I live however I want now. G-man, you forgot the standard disclaimer: " This is my particular belief system, which I picked out of a hat, as did everyone else theirs, and is being dragged out for idle discussion only." I just knew as soon as someone mentioned god here'd come G-man and try to make it religious, somehow.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 10:04:28 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: I just knew as soon as someone mentioned god here'd come G-man and try to make it religious, somehow.... God is "religious?" THAT's a shocker. You should warn us all to sit down before you drop bombshells like that one. [}:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 10:11:17 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: God is "religious?" THAT's a shocker. You should warn us all to sit down before you drop bombshells like that one. [}:D] Go back to your bridge, troll. the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 10:20:39 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Go back to your bridge, troll. the_reject Actually, the bridge is for sale. Its in Brooklyn - you may have seen it. What's "YHBT" mean??? And you'll have to forgive me, but when I see the word "God" (capitalized and everything) in a thread title, silly me, but I figger its fair game to actually talk about, ya know, "God" and such. [}:D] Now, I guess even discussing the topic is "trolling." [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 10:41:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Actually, the bridge is for sale. Its in Brooklyn - you may have seen it. Well, it's still obviously under your ownership. Get back to it. It might grow legs and walk away. What's "YHBT" mean??? [b]Y[/b]ou [b]H[/b]ave [b]B[/b]een [b]T[/b]rolled. And you'll have to forgive me, but when I see the word "God" (capitalized and everything) in a thread title, silly me, but I figger its fair game to actually talk about, ya know, "God" and such. Well, you'll have to excuse me, but I figured that someone with over 6000 posts must know how to read. I guess I'm wrong, because it seems as though you didn't even bother. This (despite your hopes for it) is not a debate about religious beliefs. In fact, it's a thread about a recent 9th Circuit decision regarding a freedom of establishment/freedom of speech issue. Perhaps you've heard of it. If you haven't, I invite you to read this thread and learn about it. There is also marvelous related dialogue about other court decisions. Theological debates, however, are found lacking - probably for good reason. Read. Comprehend. Post. In that order. Now, I guess even discussing the topic is "trolling." Don't think you can feed anyone that tripe. You knew when you posted that you were trolling for a response to hijack this thread into the moral arguments that you love to partake in. How else do you explain your loving Mr. Devil icon, eh? I've watched enough around here - Christian theological debates are your forté, and you enjoy it. I would say you are good at it, but since all you do is repeat the same thing over and over again (and effectively convincing no one, irritating others, and boring many), I'd be kidding myself. the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 10:49:53 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Read. Comprehend. Post. In that order. the_reject The thread title asks : "Why is everyone freakin' out about the "in God " stuff?" I think that the answer "becasue they don't want to be accountable to Him" is a perfectly viable answer. But since you insist, I'll keep my opinion to myself for the remnainder of this thread. Yer in charge here. Use your power wisely, and be a benevolent dictator. [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 11:18:32 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: ...the public school system is telling their kid that there is a God, and making them recite it. ...the government make their kids say there is a God. No one has made anybody say the pledge. There is no requirement in school or government to recite the pledge. It is strictly optional. OK sure it technically is optional to SAY, but it is not optional to LISTEN to. Teachers are leading their classrooms in citing the pledge so it is a government endorsement of an established religious figure. The under god reference doesn't bother me at all, but I believe the court was right to strike it down. Bush is drawing a real thin line with separation of church and state lately, by calling this ruling "ridiculous." This, along with the faith base intitiative and the voucher program whuch would directly put my tax dollars into private, religious schools, is starting to go a little too far. The Republican Party these days is simply way too synonymous with christianity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 11:32:38 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Don't go to Gubberment shkools. [:D] Good point! And that's exactly why when I have kids they will go to a private school or be home schooled! The latter nullifying my scholarship argument. [:(] Yes, Private or Home School is what's best for parents who really care about their kids education. I do think that there are scholarships and/or grants that are avail to these students, if not by gooberment, than by private groups. I disagree, there are some really good public (and private) schools out if you are willing to look hard enough. The opposite is also true...there are plenty of bad public (and private) schools. In MI, schools are mostly governed at the local level, so the quality depends on where you live. There are numerous scholarships that are available to private school students. I am not sure about home-schooled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 11:36:06 AM EDT
[#40]
Damn, the_reject! Remind me not to get on your bad side! [:D]
Without making comment on the validity of what you said, kinda harsh, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 11:37:57 AM EDT
[#41]
The current discussion revealed or has proven etc. that the "under God" statement was placed in the Pledge for a political agenda. I think most agree to this idea. However, does the fact that our country was founded on the basis of religious freedom play into this anywhere? I mean the Fore Fathers believed in God ( at least the majority ) and in creating our "Free Society" they completely bound it with religion. It seems the "under God" added to the Pledge was just an effort to reconfirm the existing, undeniable tie this country has with a monotheistic ideal of GOD.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 11:47:39 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Damn, the_reject! Remind me not to get on your bad side! [:D] Without making comment on the validity of what you said, kinda harsh, don't you think? Heh, I'm in rare form today, that's all. [:)] Kinda harsh? Nah. Overrun by sarcasm, yeah. A bit of pent-up frustration that had to be let out eventually, and garandman provided the target of opportunity. [;D] the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 11:48:59 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Bush is drawing a real thin line with separation of church and state lately, by calling this ruling "ridiculous." This, along with the faith base intitiative and the voucher program whuch would directly put my tax dollars into private, religious schools, is starting to go a little too far. The Republican Party these days is simply way too synonymous with christianity. Where do you find this "Separation of Church and State" at? Where does that term come from? What law is it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 11:54:04 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: However, does the fact that our country was founded on the basis of religious freedom play into this anywhere? I mean the Fore Fathers believed in God ( at least the majority ) and in creating our "Free Society" they completely bound it with religion. No, they specifically and purposely left any reference to God or religion out of the Constitution, which is the basis for all other laws in the country. The 1st Amendment was added later to prevent Congress from making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof;" |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 12:34:10 PM EDT
[#45]
Why is it that people think that belief in God implies religious? Most of the conspicuous founding fathers were in fact *not* religious, yet did believe in God. Perhaps people's political agendas are bleeding onto this board as well?
I for one would have a problem with removing it from money, not for political reasons, but because that will *cost* money to do. Eliminating the "under God" clause (that was instated, as it turns out, unconstitutionally) from 1956, costs no one any money. Just don't teach it. This has nothing to do with getting rid of religions or persecuting anyone, and does not reflect the moral inequities of today's society, it simply reflects a more broad-minded and open society, where religious persecution (of any type) is frowned upon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 12:41:50 PM EDT
[#46]
Sweep,
I see what you are saying, but I don't believe you understood what I meant. Yes they left it out, but the same people who left God out, signed a Constitution that was ratified "in the year of our Lord". Its ingrained in this society, whether anyone likes it or not. They even capitalized Lord. This country was founded on religious freedom... not freedom from religion. Article. VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the [b] Year of our Lord [/b]one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 12:57:26 PM EDT
[#47]
Sweep,
The separation of church and state was a [b]fundamental[/b] issue in the founding of this country as well as the Bill of Rights. This ideal was written into the First Amendment, stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." A good quotation from a former SCOTUS case can sum my argument up.. "When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992. Separation of church and state is one of the longest running foundations we have here in America, and if Bush isn't careful he may cross the line if he hasn't already. Here is a good page for more info on the separation of church and state...[url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 1:01:38 PM EDT
[#48]
These things always get good on Friday when its time to go home.
MisterGreens Found this on the USConstitution.net in their FAQ. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state (James Madison said it "drew a line," but it is Jefferson's term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion, though it is more accurate to say that the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national religion, and protects the individual's right to worship, or not worship, however the individual sees fit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 1:07:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Sweep, Article. VII. done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the [b] Year of our Lord [/b]one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven It's a date. Doesn't hold up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 1:12:16 PM EDT
[#50]
Sweep,
The word "Lord", I don't think they meant the King of England. It has a religious connotation and they all signed it. God and religion, its all wrapped up in America from our birth, sorry. Have a nice weekend! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
