An Xtian strikes in my neighborhood

[BornAgainAtheist]

The following message was posted in a forum that deals with neighborhood issues in my area. I will be posting a response as soon as I get the time but I wanted to see what feedback I could get from fellow infidels:

LKB - Wonders why "THEY" are outlawing God: First THEY outlawed prayers in our schools. Then THEY outlawed Christian symbolism in our public buildings and on our public documents and seals. THEY recently tried to remove GOD from our pledge of Allegiance and will no doubt succeed sooner or later. Next THEY will remove GOD from "In God We Trust" on all of our money. This society of ours is so screwed up that I can clearly forsee the time coming in our very near future, when THEY will outlaw our churches and persecute those who refuse to comply. You ask who are "THEY" and how did we let them get this far in ruining the moral fabric of this once great country? THEY are the people in this country who have kept their heads buried in the sand and abdicated their civic and moral responsibilities and duties to those with 'other plans'. THEY are the ones who don't vote, don't read, don't comprehend and above all, don't care! If anyone else has a better explanation, I would like to hear it.

[gravitybow]

Perhaps your neighborhood should form a 24-hour vigilante patrol, because THEY sound like a very scary lot.:eek:

[john_v_h]

I find the expression "moral fabric" to be a red flag for a certain implacable, reactionary mindset and don't waste my time arguing with the person who uses it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Man, that's quite a mess you've got to clean up there, BAA. Off the top of my bald and poorly-functioning head:

Wonders why "THEY" are outlawing God:

Okay, let's assume for a moment that this God fellow is for real. Isn't the notion of "outlawing" an omnipotent and omnipresent being more than a little silly, stupid and ludicrous? This "outlawing" nonsense is hyperbole, plain and simple. What's more, it isn't even good hyperbole.

First THEY outlawed prayers in our schools.

Utterly devoid of truth. To steal from another poster on IIDB (can't remember his name at the moment), that's not just wrong; it's Rosie O'Donnell lap dance wrong.

On the U.S. Department of Education's website there's a document titled something like "Guide to Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Schools." Maybe that poster would benefit from reading it. The contention that prayer is unlawful in public schools is an outright lie.

Then THEY outlawed Christian symbolism in our public buildings and on our public documents and seals.

The term "public" is misleadingly overbroad. There's a thread on that issue right here in this forum. Hell, churches are public buildings in a very real sense, and I don't see anyone trying to haul religious symbols out of them. The issue is government endorsement, not "public" religious imagery.

"Christian symbolism," eh? Question: What sort of religion needs government endorsement via display of its symbols in government buildings? Answer: A substantively bankrupt one, that's what sort.

In any event, the above statement either is a purposeful lie or evidences a complete misunderstanding of the law. Religious symbols in government buildings are challenged in court all the time. Rulings are issued on a case-by-case basis. The inquiries are highly fact-intensive, and many such displays have survived. Ain't no such thing as a general law prohibiting religious symbolism in government buildings.

THEY recently tried to remove GOD from our pledge of Allegiance and will no doubt succeed sooner or later.

The words "under God" were added to the Pledge in 1954 as a result of the raving anti-commie hysteria that prevailed in the McCarthy Era. Why anyone would want to hang onto any vestiges of that rather ugly period is beyond me.

If this guy's talking about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, he's got nothing to worry about. That ruling hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of holding up in the Supreme Court. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

If he's worried about Congress taking "under God" out of the Pledge, he can relax there, too. Right after the Ninth Circuit decided Newdow, resolutions were introduced in both houses of Congress to "reaffirm" the 1954 wording of the Pledge. The Senate resolution passed unanimously (99-0) and the House resolution skated through with but four no votes. The words in question aren't going anywhere, at least not in any of our lifetimes.

Next THEY will remove GOD from "In God We Trust" on all of our money.

Given what Jesus had to say on the subject, I can't imagine why any Christian would even tolerate having God and Mammon so closely linked, much less approve of it.

This society of ours is so screwed up that I can clearly forsee the time coming in our very near future, when THEY will outlaw our churches and persecute those who refuse to comply.

Yeah, dude, that's BOUND to happen. Baby-eating atheists outnumber Christians and other theists in this country by, what, a hundred to one or something? :rolleyes: This guy's foresight has all the accuracy of a smooth-bore flintlock musket fired at a moving target from a distance of a thousand yards.

But hey, I'll play along. Let's assume the ridiculous, namely that churches get "outlawed" some day. Well, lookie who's coming to your rescue! That's right, it's those wicked activist liberal judges and that pesky First Amendment of theirs. See, there's a little something called the Free Exercise Clause within that First Amendment thingy that absolutely prohibits "outlawing" of that sort. This guy really needs to calm the hell down.

You ask who are "THEY" and how did we let them get this far in ruining the moral fabric of this once great country?

Hoo boy. First of all, there's no such thing as the good old days, Skippy. They exist only within that vast expanse of empty space between your ears.

Also, if our "moral fabric" was ever dependent upon displaying Jesus stuff in government buildings and such, then we never really had any moral fabric to begin with.

If anyone else has a better explanation, I would like to hear it.

Sure. All this erosion of our "moral fabric" happened after they added "under God" to the Pledge, adopted "In God We Trust" as a national motto and started placing that motto on all our money. Clearly, Da Lawd is displeased with these developments and wants us to knock it off right away. :D

[queue]

First THEY outlawed prayers in our schools. No, THEY stopped a government entity (schools) from promoting a type of religion by having school sponsored prayers. Students can pray to their heart's content as long as they do not disrupt classes. Teachers and administrators can pray to their heart's content as long as they do not do so while in their official capacity as a government official.
Then THEY outlawed Christian symbolism in our public buildings and on our public documents and seals. No, THEY stopped government from promoting a type of religion by having Christian symbolism in public buildings and on public documents and seals. Americans have different religions. There are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Wiccans, and others.
THEY recently tried to remove GOD from our pledge of Allegiance and will no doubt succeed sooner or later. No, THEY tried to stop the government from promoting a type of religion by the unconstitutional act of adding the "under God" into the official Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. People could say the Pledge of Allegiance (prior to 1954) and add "under God" to their heart's content and the government would not be promoting religion. By adding "under God" into the official Pledge of Allegiance, the government is promoting religion.
Next THEY will remove GOD from "In God We Trust" on all of our money. THEY may try to stop government from promoting a type of religion by unconstitutionally adding "In God We Trust" on the money (started in 1864 on coins) and changing the official motto of the United States of America from "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one) to "In God We Trust" in 1956. Source for In God We Trust. (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html) Not all Americans put their trust in God. Some put their trust in themselves and other humans. Some put their trust in a Goddess. Some put their trust in mulitple gods.

The "under God" and "In God We Trust" are not inclusive statements. They are exclusive, splitting the country into different groups (those that are under a god or put their trust in a god and those that are not under a god or do not put their trust in a god). By the government officially using these statements, it is saying that one group is better than the other group (or the other group are not actual Americans). How would Christians feel if the government used "under Allah" and "In Allah We Trust" or "under Goddess" and "In Goddess We Trust"?

THEY are not stopping prayer. THEY are not stopping Christianity. THEY are not, necessarily, against religion. THEY are just trying to stop the government from promoting a religion (regardless of how generic a religion, it will still exclude some religions and those that do not have any religion).

[Richard1366]

We have met the enemy and he is us...

Pogo

[Beetle]

You ask who are "THEY" and how did we let them get this far in ruining the moral fabric of this once great country?
Yeah, the country was so much better when we had regular lynchings, white-only restaurants and the poll tax. :rolleyes:

[The Other Michael]

No, US is OK, it is THEY that we need to worry about (just read the OP).

cheers,
Michael

[BornAgainAtheist]

Below is the response that I intend to make to the OP. I don't want to get into name calling and theist bashing...... yet.

I would like to offer up a better explanation. It is our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Particularly the First Amendment:

"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."

We Americans have been given the ability to choose any religion we wish to follow, or no religion at all, without government intervention. The display of a certain religion's symbols on government property is the same as the government endorsing that religion over all others.

When the term "God" is used, it refers to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. This is also exclusionary to other religions that aren't based on the Bible. For this reasonI feel that the term "God" should never be used in a conjunction with our government. This includes the Pledge of Allegiance (which didn't have "under God" until 1954) and our money.

For now I am going to ignore the last part of your comment. It's just wrong and mean spirited.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by BornAgainAtheist
LKB - Wonders why "THEY" are outlawing God:

Strawman. No one is trying to outlaw god, the cries of the kneejerk preachers trying to drum up dollars for their radio programs and churches notwithstanding.

First THEY outlawed prayers in our schools.

Strawman. Prayer has not been outlawed in schools, nor has anyone tried.

Then THEY outlawed Christian symbolism in our public buildings and on our public documents and seals.

Strawman. SCOTUS has held that much religious (not Christian) symbolism (e.g. "In God We Trust") is allowable.

THEY recently tried to remove GOD from our pledge of Allegiance and will no doubt succeed sooner or later.

Success of the attempt is far from certain. (And who is "they" in this case, anyway?)

Next THEY will remove GOD from "In God We Trust" on all of our money.

Slippery slope argument. Previous attempts to do so have failed, and since SCOTUS has previously dealt with this issue and ruled to let "In God We Trust" stand, it's not likely that the phrase will be coming off our money any time soon.

This society of ours is so screwed up that I can clearly forsee the time coming in our very near future, when THEY will outlaw our churches and persecute those who refuse to comply.

Continuing with the slippery slope argument. No one is even thinking of doing such a thing; it's not even doable under our Constitution. (again, who is this "THEY"?)

You ask who are "THEY" and how did we let them get this far in ruining the moral fabric of this once great country? THEY are the people in this country who have kept their heads buried in the sand and abdicated their civic and moral responsibilities and duties to those with 'other plans'. THEY are the ones who don't vote, don't read, don't comprehend and above all, don't care! If anyone else has a better explanation, I would like to hear it.

Oh, thanks for the clarification. How is this group of ostriches that don't vote, don't read, don't comprehend, and don't care supposed to do all the things you claim they're supposed to do, like outlawing churches and persecuting the non-compliant?

I have a better explanation; you're tetched in the head from listening to too many TV and radio preachers.

[Mageth]

When the term "God" is used, it refers to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. This is also exclusionary to other religions that aren't based on the Bible. For this reasonI feel that the term "God" should never be used in a conjunction with our government. This includes the Pledge of Allegiance (which didn't have "under God" until 1954) and our money.

Note that previous Supreme Court decisions have held that "God" (e.g. when used in "In God We Trust") is generic and is not limited to the JC god.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by BornAgainAtheist
We Americans have been given the ability to choose any religion we wish to follow, or no religion at all, without government intervention. The display of a certain religion's symbols on government property is the same as the government endorsing that religion over all others.

(1) Change "given the ability to choose" to "have a Constitutionally recognized right to choose."

(2) Add, after the last sentence, a comment that explains and demonstrates what you are saying. "Let somebody try to put a statue of Hitler up in our public buildings and say that this is not meant to endorse Hitler's ideas, but merely to recognize the fact that he existed."

[BornAgainAtheist]

I sent my response before I got some of these great suggestions from everyone. Below is the latest edition of the newsletter and it contains a number of agreeing responses. BTW, this isn't a neighborhood publication as I stated earlier. It's a community newsletter encompasing 5 neighboring cities, townships and villages. Thanks to all for your support.


RESPONSES TO GOD AND
SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE

NON CHRISTIAN CITIZEN:
THEY are the people in this country who have kept their heads buried in the
sand and abdicated their civic and moral responsibilities and duties to those
with 'other plans'. THEY are the ones who don't vote, don't read, don't
comprehend and above all, don't care! If anyone else has a better explanation, I
would like to hear it.
I really must object.

I am a moral person, and I contribute to my community. I don't rob, lie to
or injure anyone intentional. I was raised well by my parents, and taught to
respect others and to treat others with the respect I wished accorded to me. I
was brought up in the public schools, and graduated in the top 10% of my
class. I vote, I read voraciously, and I am a student of Constitutional Law.

I am NOT a Christian. I was forced to say the name of a diety in whom I do
not believe EVERY morning when I was in school. I would feel like I was less
of a person for not believing in God, and yet felt that I had to go along with
the tide, or make myself an obvious outcast. My parents hardly ever had to
say "under God" in the Pledge because it wasn't added in until they were near
the end of their school years.

Being a Christian is not a pre-requisite to being a moral person or a good
citizen. This country was established, among other reasons, as a haven for
people of various religions (even if most of them were Christians), where they
would not be persecuted for their beliefs. At various times in our history; the
Salem Witch Trials, the Nativist era in the mid-19th century, the period of
high immigration from Catholic nations in the early-20th century; we've seen
other forms of religious intolerance in this nation. We should not repeat those
mistakes in the present day, and we should be willing to leave our religious
beliefs in our homes, where they belong.

It still rankles me that the City of Twinsburg opens their city meetings with
invocations of the Christian God, as Twinsburg's population continues to grow
more religiously diverse. Whether Christian, Jew, Sikh or Buddhist, the
people of Twinsburg are good people, and we shouldn't be favouring the religion of
one group over those religions of the remaining groups.

Non-Christian Citizen
Regional

FERNITSKI:
"THEY" also represent a large population of people who are quite readily
welcomed in this country. This group believes in higher powers, but get this, NOT
OUR GOD. They're spiritual, righteous, humble, etc...but would rather not
feel persecuted because they believe in something.
And to group everyone who disagrees with the government endorsing a
particular religion into a group who "doesn't vote, doesn't read, doesn't comprehend
and above all, doesn't care" is ignorant. They obviously care because they made
it an issue. Many vote who don't endorse this. Just because you live in a
Christian-centric town in a little village in Ohio doesn't mean that you
represent the entire country's beliefs. Think about it before you call everyone who
doesn't believe the same things as you an illiterate, lazy useless THEY.

AJUNGLEDWELLER:
to lkb-man i couldnt agree with you more, however, i would like to address
some things you mentioned. nothing happens in our world wihout God allowing it
to happen. the truth is the people that are pulling us away from God are
involved, not as you suggested "THEY arent involved in anything." the problem is
the evil one (satan) has a grip on them and while they think they are being
tolerant and progressive, they are moving us farther away from the principles of
God. you know what, its scriptural, and im sure you know that. Our world is
moving closer and closer to the rapture and i couldnt be happeir. LBK- stick
to what u believe, impact the community your involved in and allow God to do
the rest-thats all He has called us to do.

NCTRESIDENT:
I would like to offer up a better explanation. It is
our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Particularly
the First Amendment:

"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."

We Americans have been given the ability to choose any
religion we wish to follow, or no religion at all,
without government intervention. The display of a
certain religion's symbols on government property is
the same as the government endorsing that religion
over all others.

When the term "God" is used, it refers to the
Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. This is also
exclusionary to other religions that aren't based on
the Bible. For this reason I feel that the term "God"
should never be used in conjunction with our
government. This includes the Pledge of Allegiance
(which didn't have "under God" until 1954) and our
money.

For now I am going to ignore the last part of your
comment. It's just wrong and mean spirited.

nctresidet

IPNOS:
Are you serious? Or are you just trying stir something up? Never have I
heard of anyone considering outlawing churches, and I surely am free to
attend my church every sunday.

The reason that there is such a big deal out of the prayers in school, the
Pledge of Allegience and others is that people have this need to create
controversy. We are all free people who 'choose' to live under the
government we elect. We all have rights, including those that do not
practice religion.

Call it reverse discrimination or whatever, this is minor to the fact that I
can't smoke a cigarette anywhere but my truck! (Attempt at humor)

Just my 10 cents, or which 2 cents are free, I'll invoice the rest.\
Jim

[BornAgainAtheist]

They strike in packs... like rabid wolves.

GEOLINE4: Your argument is not valid with this proof offered. The first amendment has no say at all as to display or even endorsement. It was enacted to prevent Congress from making a law to "promote" or "establish" a government religion. That is all nothing more. It gives as much freedom to display to say to pray as not to display or not to say or not to pray in any location. As long as you can look the other way and there be no law to make you look; I think we have communion with this passage. Hell, I would like to see more religious symbols on Government Property. All kinds of religions. Lets have a competition. The best symbol wins as many adult converts as it can hold. Oh.. by the way for your information ALL PROPERTY (every crap lot and house) is GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Our title only allows USE. As to the WORD GOD when I commonly use the word it has less absolute reference to Jews and Christians and way more a connotation as an expletive. In my view NOT TO BE DELETED. Why don't judges exercise judgment these days? Are they fearful of history? I'm fed-up with protecting minority interests. God (you pick one) bless us all with peace.

ZYXLEBA: In Response to NCTRESIDENT - You quoted the first amendment of the 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." You then stated "The display of a certain religion's symbols on government property is the same as the government endorsing that religion over all others." First, the amendment you quote refers to making a law establishing a specific religion. Displaying certain religious symbols on government property does not constitute "making a law" regarding that religion. Second, there is a huge difference between establishing and endorsing. Again, endorsing does not constitute "making a law". Therefore, according to the same amendment you quote, displaying religious symbols on government property DOES NOT violate the constitution. Too many people like to quote this amendment without understanding what it really states or the intent behind this amendment. Furthermore, our country is a democratic republic, democracy meaning "the rule of the majority". That does NOT mean any small group has the right to over ride the desires of the majority. If the majority of Americans believe in God, then the local government violates no law by displaying religious symbols.

AJUNGLEDWELLER: to non christian citizen-you state the city council open up with prayers to the "christian God" vesus God, the God of all? i dont attend meetings (dont want to) but im confused by how you refer to the "Christian God". What is the difference from the God of all to the Christian God? From what i know, what seperates christians from many other religions is their belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and how folks are forgiven and saved but not in God. God is God, the beginning and the end, the creator of all, the one who gives us life and takes it away; dont all religions believe that? Please explain to help me better understand your concerns.

KNIZ71: I would like to respond to an incorrect statement by NCTRESIDENT in the last NS7. To quote: "The display of a certain religion's symbols on government property is the same as the government endorsing that religion over all others." This is without a doubt one of the greatest peversions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The founders of this nation indeed strove to create a country (unlike all others) where individuals would be free to worship as they please. This did not (EVER) apply the 1st Amendment in the way in which it ever increasingly is applied. The framers of the Constitution meant only to PROHIBIT the CONGRESS from establishing a national religion. If you doubt what I say you are free to read any of the personal writings and notes of the men involved in the writing of that document(Library of Congress). The 1st Amendment also was never intended to apply to the states, nor to apply to local governments. It wasn't until the 14th Amendent was ratified after the Civil War that we even began to think about prohibitions on the states. In addition, while I do not wish to push my religious beliefs upon anyone who is unwilling to listen, I do believe, however, that the posting of the Ten Commandments would not violate, nor should it offend, the "reasonable citizen" standard. The "Judeo-Christian" tradition of law is the core of our legal system. The "MORALS" professed by non-Christians comes this tradition. Even the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledges this (the Ten Commandments are depicted in a mural within the chamber. kniz71

DON SEYMOUR JR.: In response to NCTRESIDENT: In no Congressionally adopted, Presidentially-signed piece of legislation is there anything that suggests that, "The display of a certain religion's symbols on government property is the same as the government endorsing that religion over all others." Per the First Amendment, as you yourself cited, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If the local Post Office puts up a Christmas tree (which isn't even so much Christian as a celebration of capitalism but that's another story), it isn't establishing Christianity as the state religion. The notion that anything remotely having to do with the public or government being off-limits to what contemporary standards hold as "religious" (usually Christian) is anathema to what the Founding Fathers advocated. While no religion may be established as a state-religion nor be sanctioned or the exercise thereof prohibited, the Founders were not secularists nor did they advocate secularism (which one might argue is a religion unto itself). In actuality, most of the Founders were Deists or Unitarians " not Christians “ believing only in some form of impersonal Providence. There is nothing that indicates that "when the term "God" is used, it refers to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. The Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: " The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."Non Christian Citizen" is right in that "being a Christian is not a pre-requisite to being a moral person or a good citizen." But that's beyond the point. America was founded as and is a religious republic not a Christian one, and not a secular one. Acknowledging that in the public arena is not tantamount to the establishment of one or the persecution of others. -Don Seymour Jr.



Damn... I wish I had more time to respond to this tripe.

[Worldtraveller]

Wow, there is a lot of out-n-out hogwash in some of those letters. The good news is, there are also a couple of fairly well argued, if misguided attempts at reason. :)
In particular, I like this one:
In no Congressionally adopted, Presidentially-signed piece of legislation is there anything that suggests that, "The display of a certain religion's symbols on government property is the same as the government endorsing that religion over all others."
Notice this individual is forgetting one entire branch of our government, which was designed with the system of checks and balances just for this very reason! :banghead:
And this:The "Judeo-Christian" tradition of law is the core of our legal system.
Is this a case of if they repeat it enough, it will be true? I elieve a sense of perspective, (and a little history) would go a long way towards helping these people.
I don't have the time either (or the inclination at this point) to pick these apart line by line. Hope this helps a little though.
I thought your response was well done.

Cheers,
Lane

[Enlighten Me]

To pass on a question that was presented by a writer in a recent newspaper column.....Is God like a welfare mother who depends solely on the government for his support? :rolleyes:

[truelies]

"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."

(quote)We Americans have been given the ability to choose any
religion we wish to follow, or no religion at all,
without government intervention. The display of a
certain religion's symbols on government property is
the same as the government endorsing that religion
over all others.(quote)

Both of the above statements are correct observations about the relationship of religion to the State in America.

(quote)When the term "God" is used, it refers to the
Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. This is also
exclusionary to other religions that aren't based on
the Bible. For this reason I feel that the term "God"
should never be used in conjunction with our
government. This includes the Pledge of Allegiance
(which didn't have "under God" until 1954) and our
money.(quote)

Again a correct obsevation coupled to a not unexpected feeling from a free-thinker. However, it would appear that the Founders of the USA were not at all uncomfortable with a generic Christianity forming the moral basis underlying the Character of the American People. Certainly those who composed the Federalist Papers which are a recognised exposition of what the words of the Constitution meant to its Authors saw that Common Religion as one major justification for the Constitution. the First Amendment bars the federal Government from declaring one particular Christian Denomination from to be the Church of the United States or from regulating the content/mode of private religious observance. Not one word is said about religion at the level of the Several States. Given that State Churches were the noem for generations after the ratification of the Constitution and given that no amendment has ever rescinded that power of the several States it would appear that such power still exists however inprudient one might think it to exercise that power.

[Toto]

truelies-

The concept of "generic Christianity" would have been foreign to the founding fathers. Christians were slaughtering each other in Europe over which version of Christianity was true.

Can you give a cite from the Federalist papers?

Why do you reject the Supreme Court's holding that the 14th amendment extends the liberties guaranteed in the 1st amendment to citizens confronting government power at the state level?

[Shake]

While I do disagree with LKB's moronic post in general, there is a tidbit of truth:THEY are the ones who don't vote, don't read, don't comprehend and above all, don't care!OK, not exactly, but people like this -- the non-voting, can't be concerned with educating themselves about candidates and issues, etc. -- are a scary lot. The ones who actually do vote, but either just go in without doing any research, or just vote a straight party line 'cause that's how they always vote are, IMHO, even worse than the ones who don't vote. At least if they don't vote, I don't have to worry about them having an impact in politics. [/rant]

Stephen Maturin, queue, and Mageth each have excellent posts debunking LKB's drivel. This in particular:But hey, I'll play along. Let's assume the ridiculous, namely that churches get "outlawed" some day. Well, lookie who's coming to your rescue! That's right, it's those wicked activist liberal judges and that pesky First Amendment of theirs. See, there's a little something called the Free Exercise Clause within that First Amendment thingy that absolutely prohibits "outlawing" of that sort. This guy really needs to calm the hell down.... was hilarious! ('cause it's true!)

I'd be willing to bet that most of these "let's get rid of the (evil) ACLU" types wouldn't turn down their help if they got caught up in some sort of civil rights issue. I'll grant them that I don't always agree with the ACLU, but if they worked ideally, it would silly for anyone not to be a member. Michael Douglas had a good line about it in The American President, which I would butcher if I tried to repeat it now.

[ScumDog]

"For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter that I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago."

From this (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechtheamericanpresident.html) link.

[Shake]

Damn! I forgot a point I was going to make, which I borrowed from a link I got in a thread in PD about the First Amendment, separation, etc.

The Free Exercise clause says that Congress may not prohibit people from practicing any religion they so choose. The key word, which I italicized above, is "prohibit", which means to ban, or to use LKBs word, "outlaw". Nothing has been outlawed, as has already been pointed out here. But, and here's the catch, government reserves the right to limit such practices if they conflict with the public good (or put people in danger), i.e. no human sacrifices or other questionable acts. You are free to have peaceful celebrations of whatever faith you choose to follow, though, and this is what government may not prohibit. The language selected was done so very precisely by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Phrasing was agonized over, much like in legal contracts, in order to convey certain meanings. There has been debate over the years as to the application of such language, and what limits there are, but this is the role of the courts. To establish such limits, and do so with the backing of the meaning of the law (in cases where the wording is somewhat vague).

Ahh, it's always nice to see people quoting the Treaty of Tripoli. I'd only just learned of this within the past year or so.

Edit to add: thanks, Scumdog!

[truelies]

Originally posted by Toto
truelies-

The concept of "generic Christianity" would have been foreign to the founding fathers. Christians were slaughtering each other in Europe over which version of Christianity was true.

Can you give a cite from the Federalist papers?

Why do you reject the Supreme Court's holding that the 14th amendment extends the liberties guaranteed in the 1st amendment to citizens confronting government power at the state level?

(QUOTE)With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. (QUOTE)

The above is from Federalist #2

Amendment XIV

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


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


It appears to me that Section 1 was intended to ensure that Negroes would enjoy the asame legal privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States as those already enjoyed by White citizens. I see nothing here that it was the intent of the authors of this amendment to deny the Citizens of the Several States the already exisitng option of State support of their collective choice in the area of Religion so long as no special preference is given to any one Christian denomination over another.