America Was NOT Founded On Christian Principles

[Rich2018]

I can't see you actually supporting your ideas other than red herrings.

Why are REAL examples of slave labor and/or prisoner abuse, "red herrings" ?
They simply put your bogus idea, that inmate labor in modern prisons equating to slave labor, into proper context

Bottom line is that requiring inmates to work as part of their punishment is NOT slave labor, nor is it a violation of their rights.

I've given you three examples that are, but you're in denial and refuse to accept them.

 

[Gordy327]

Separation only as far as "we will not be a clerical state". Any SCOTUS decision suggesting a ban on religion in government comes from intellectually challenged activist justices.

Clearly you can't refute anything I said about separation and its legal recognition and applications, much less provide an actual supporting argument for yourself. All you can do is 'nuh-uh' and blame SCOTUS Justices, whom I wager know far more about the Constitution than you do.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Clearly you can't refute anything I said about separation and its legal recognition and applications, much less provide an actual supporting argument for yourself. All you can do is 'nuh-uh' and blame SCOTUS Justices, whom I wager know far more about the Constitution than you do.

Again, unfortunately for you, the term "Separation of church and state" does not exist in the US Constitution. The First Amendment is the law. SCOTUS decisions are interpretations that carry weight as long as they are not overturned by future interpetations. That you cannot understand that is your problem, not mine. I am reasonably sure that if Roe Vs Wade is overturned in a matter of days as expected, you will be screaming "Activist judges" from the mountain tops.

 

[MAGAnificent]

You claim to oppose Sharia law but it seems that you would have no problems allowing christian do do the very same thing. Is Christian ISIL your idea of a stable and free society?

What???????????????????????????????????????????????

Sharia law would be a clear violation of the first amendment. If we allowed sharia law even on one community, we would at some level be a clerical state. And what Christian children are doing the same thing?

 

[Gordy327]

Again, unfortunately for you, the term "Separation of church and state" does not exist in the US Constitution. The First Amendment is the law. SCOTUS decisions are interpretations that carry weight as long as they are not overturned by future interpetations. That you cannot understand that is your problem, not mine. I am reasonably sure that if Roe Vs Wade is overturned in a matter of days as expected, you will be screaming "Activist judges" from the mountain tops.

Once again, something does not need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be valid. Separation is in the Constitution according to the FFs and the SCOTUS. it seems you cannot grasp those simple concepts. Neither have you refuted anything i said. At this point, youre just repeating youself and demonstrating your lack of understanding of basic civics. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Once again, something does not need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be valid.

Actually, yes it does if it is claimed as constitutional law.

Separation is in the Constitution according to the FFs and the SCOTUS. it seems you cannot grasp those simple concepts. Neither have you refuted anything i said. At this point, youre just repeating yourseld and demonstrating your lack of understanding of basic civics. That's your problem, not mine.

We are talking about text in the US Constitution. If it's not there, it's up for interpretation by the judicial branch. Such interpretation carries weight in law unless and until it's overturned by future interpretation. SCOTUS decisions are not amendments to the constitution, therefore they are not necessarily permanent. By now, you must know Roe Vs Wade may not be permanent. They can be overturned by a majority decision in a 9 justice court whereas repeal of an amendment to the US Constitution would take a two thirds vote in both houses of congress and 3/4 of all states would have to ratify. You are the one with a civics problem.

 

[Gordy327]

Actually, yes it does if it is claimed as constitutional law.

We are talking about text in the US Constitution. If it's not there, it's up for interpretation by the judicial branch. Such interpretation carries weight in law unless and until it's overturned by future interpretation. SCOTUS decisions are not amendments to the constitution, therefore they are not necessarily permanent. By now, you must know Roe Vs Wade may not be permanent. They can be overturned by a majority decision in a 9 justice court whereas repeal of an amendment to the US Constitution would take a two thirds vote in both houses of congress and 3/4 of all states would have to ratify. You are the one with a civics problem.

SCOTUS interpretations and rulings carry constitutional weight. You seem yo ignore the many landmark rulings which affirm separation. It's never been significantly challenged nor is it likely to be changed anytime soon. So you're basically whining about nothing.

 

[devildavid]

Separation only as far as "we will not be a clerical state". Any SCOTUS decision suggesting a ban on religion in government comes from intellectually challenged activist justices.

The 1st amendment does not allow for religion in government. To do so would violate the amendment.

 

[MAGAnificent]

The 1st amendment does not allow for religion in government. To do so would violate the amendment.

You lack the foggiest idea what you are talking about. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that prohibits religion in government. It only prohibits the US government from establishing an official state sanctioned religion, in effect prohibiting us from becoming a clerical state.

 

[Gordy327]

You lack the foggiest idea what you are talking about. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that prohibits religion in government. It only prohibits the US government from establishing an official state sanctioned religion, in effect prohibiting us from becoming a clerical state.

Wrong again! Separation means the government must remain religiously neutral and policy cannot be based on religion without a secular purpose. The 1st amendment prohibiting the government from being theological is the heart of separation.

 

[MAGAnificent]

SCOTUS interpretations and rulings carry constitutional weight. You seem yo ignore the many landmark rulings which affirm separation. It's never been significantly challenged nor is it likely to be changed anytime soon. So you're basically whining about nothing.

You are not listening. They carry weight only as long as they are not overturned by future court. You should be learning that from the ongoing debate over Roe Vs Wade, and it's probably demise in the coming days, not to mention the democrats in congress losing control of their bowels every time a conservative justice is nominated.

 

[devildavid]

You lack the foggiest idea what you are talking about. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that prohibits religion in government. It only prohibits the US government from establishing an official state sanctioned religion, in effect prohibiting us from becoming a clerical state.

Yes there is. Government can make no law for establishment of religion. That is the same thing. You can't have government sanction any particular religion. People in government can practice any religion they want and it can inform their decisions, but they cannot legislate anything that would favor their specific religion.

 

[Gordy327]

You are not listening. They carry weight only as long as they are not overturned by future court. You should be learning that from the ongoing debate over Roe Vs Wade, and it's probably demise in the coming days, not to mention the democrats in congress losing control of their bowels every time a conservative justice is nominated.

You're the one who's not listening. The court has affirmed separation multiple times in its history. You're trying to argue with a "what if" scenario. Try harder. Because like it or not, separation is, for all practical purposes and function, in the Constitution. You've offered nothing to refute that.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Wrong again! Separation means the government must remain religiously neutral and policy cannot be based on religion without a secular purpose. The 1st amendment prohibiting the government from being theological is the heart of separation.

Again, the words "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the constitution. And you are making up your own definition of the first amendment at adding to it.

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

That is not a ban on religion in government. If it is, then you should dispose of all your currency and coin as it all includes: "In God We Trust".

 

[Gordy327]

Again, the words "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the constitution. And you are making up your own definition of the first amendment at adding to it.

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

That is not a ban on religion in government. If it is, then you should dispose of all your currency and coin as it all includes: "In God We Trust".

And you're still wrong, especially according to the SCOTUS & the FFs. Repeating yourself does not make you right. Neither is it convincing or persuasive.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Yes there is. Government can make no law for establishment of religion. That is the same thing. You can't have government sanction any particular religion. People in government can practice any religion they want and it can inform their decisions, but they cannot legislate anything that would favor their specific religion.

Congratulations! That is basically what I have been trying to tell you and Gordy. However that is not a separation of church and state. A separation of church and state as the left has been pushing prevents any religion, religious ceremonies in government institutions, prevents prayer in public schools, etc.

 

[MAGAnificent]

And you're still wrong, especially according to the SCOTUS & the FFs. Repeating yourself does not make you right. Neither is it convincing or persuasive.

Repeating yourself does not make you right. See #291.

 

[Gordy327]

Repeating yourself does not make you right. See #291.

Except I'm backed by the SCOTUS and the FFs. You, not so much.

 

[Gordy327]

Congratulations! That is basically what I have been trying to tell you and Gordy. However that is not a separation of church and state. A separation of church and state as the left has been pushing prevents any religion, religious ceremonies in government institutions, prevents prayer in public schools, etc.

Separation prevents the government from leading religious ceremonies, such as prayers in school. Individuals are still free to engage in such ceremonies within reason.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Separation prevents the government from leading religious ceremonies, such as prayers in school. Individuals are still free to engage in such ceremonies within reason.

Not entirely. Congress opens every session with a prayer. I believe the US Supreme Court does as well. And while at a public school, prayer cannot be mandated, there is nothing to prevent a teacher leading a prayer if no student in the room objects.

 

[Gordy327]

Not entirely. Congress opens every session with a prayer. I believe the US Supreme Court does as well. And while at a public school, prayer cannot be mandated, there is nothing to prevent a teacher leading a prayer if no student in the room objects.

The constitutionality of such things is questionable. Even a few of the FFs took issue with it. But then, no one is required or forced to participate either. And no, a teacher cannot lead a prayer, regardless of objections or not. School led prayer is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[devildavid]

Congratulations! That is basically what I have been trying to tell you and Gordy. However that is not a separation of church and state. A separation of church and state as the left has been pushing prevents any religion, religious ceremonies in government institutions, prevents prayer in public schools, etc.

Yes, it is a separation of church and state, as no specific religion can put any laws in place in the government. The reason for the other rules is that government can't give the appearance of favoring any particular religion in any areas where it has control, such as public schools. So while public school students can pray privately, the teacher cannot lead any particular religion's prayers. Specific religious ceremonies can't have the appearance of being favored by the government. It still amounts to a separation of church and state.

 

[devildavid]

Not entirely. Congress opens every session with a prayer. I believe the US Supreme Court does as well. And while at a public school, prayer cannot be mandated, there is nothing to prevent a teacher leading a prayer if no student in the room objects.

But this prayer cannot be seen as favoring any particular religion.

A teacher cannot lead a specific religion's prayer even if no one objects.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Yes, it is a separation of church and state, as no specific religion can put any laws in place in the government. The reason for the other rules is that government can't give the appearance of favoring any particular religion in any areas where it has control, such as public schools. So while public school students can pray privately, the teacher cannot lead any particular religion's prayers. Specific religious ceremonies can't have the appearance of being favored by the government. It still amounts to a separation of church and state.

No...it does not. It simply means the US will not establish a state religion, like Great Britain had or Iran currently has.

 

[Gordy327]

No...it does not. It simply means the US will not establish a state religion, like Great Britain had or Iran currently has.

Your view of separation is quite myopic.