- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Columbusite said:You may not force it on others, but that doesn't mean others won't.
That's why religion was kept out of our government. Read the Constitution with the knowledge that the framers deliberately left out religion except in two instances regarding people's freedom of religion and no religious test for office. So we see religion is kept separate from government. That is the rationale.
You suggest you have an advantage when you are for government sponsored religion (although I can see you don't mean it this way, but it is). In this case, Christianity. Here is an article by a professor of constitutional law that sums up the pledge situation (note that this was in response to the past ruling but still applies today).
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5966
AlbqOwl said:Where we profoundly disagree is that you seem to think any religious expression in a government setting is an 'establishment of religion'. I don't think you can make a case for that. There is simply no way that a two-word phrase in the Pledge or a generic prayer in any government setting or an art object of anything is an 'establishment of religion'.
The intent of the Constitution was that government could not use its powers to require you to believe or not believe anything respective of religion, nor can it require you or forbid you to exercise your religious faith in any way that does not break the law or violate the rights of others. Now if you can show me how 'under God' in the Pledge takes anything away from you or requires you to express belief in anything or do anything or forbids you the right to do anything, I'll listen.
If you cannot do that, then it must be concluded that your adversion to those two words arises not from any violation of your inalienable rights, but rather arises from your own personal prejudice to which you are also entitled. It just doesn't give you the right to dictate a policy contrary to the majority will..
Columbusite said:Looks like someone needs to read up on decades of court rulings and the reasoning behind them (Did you read the article? I'd be interested to see a response). When the government opens itself up to religion that is a violation of the Consitution. It is unconsitutional and I'm sorry, but your interpretation simply doesn't hold up.
The “majority will” has no power over individual liberty.AlbqOwl said:It just doesn't give you the right to dictate a policy contrary to the majority will…
Six figures! And you insist that I pay for this through taxes! I’m writing my congressperson.AlbqOwl said:These chaplains make 6 figures by the way
Show me how separation of church and state is an endorsment of atheism.AlbqOwl said:I am also adamently opposed to government sponsored athiesm.
AlbqOwl said:When others do, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you to beat them back. The law protects us both equally.
No, religion was not kept out of government. Then and now, the government has had chaplains to lead prayers at the beginning of each day the legislature is in session and to provide pastoral counseling for individual legislators. (These chaplains make 6 figures by the way.) There is a world of difference beween government officials or staff being religious and the government requiring others to be religious or dictating how religion is or is not to be expressed.
I have not asked for government sponsored religion in any form. I am adamently opposed to government sponsored religion.
I am also adamently opposed to government sponsored athiesm.
I am for government allowing a community to be who and what it is so long as it does not infringe on the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of others.
Tashah said:Every time I see this argument the words petty and obsessive come to mind.
You have your viewpoint and I have mine. I also find it ironic that your freedoms have not been debased sufficiently by the Pledge conundrum to exclude this very argument.Columbusite said:Not if you look at the big picture. Separation of church and state is what made this country so much freer than others (though we still have a ways to go). I see nothing petty about it.
Navy Pride said:Well and activist liberal judge from the 9th circuit court in San Francisco has struck again today striking the word "Under God" from the Pledge of Alegiance....
It will go to the SCOTUS and be struck down but what are your thoughts?
AlbqOwl said:Well, yes, I agree with that EXCEPT. . .
I am sick and tired of a handful of militant anti-religion types chipping away at our constitutional rights. Piece by piece, little by little, they get their judges to rule that you can't have this image here....you can't sing that song there....you can't have a prayer for the safety and good sportsmanship of the football team....you can't celebrate the origins of the Christmas celebration in public....etc. etc. etc. None of these things took anything away from the anti-religious types, but they sure as heck are taking rights and enjoyment away from the 90+% of Americans who had no problem with them.
They do it little by little and we give in because it doesn't seem important to make a big deal out of something so small. And one day we'll wake up and realize we've lost something huge.
At some point we have to put on the brakes and say enough.
dragonslayer said:I was a kid in School when they added Under God to the Pledge. that was about 1949, I think. We used to start off each day in school saying the pledge of allegiance. We were very patriotic during those dark days during and following WW2.
I think it is ok to have Under God in the Pledge of allegiance. People are pledging there allegiance to the United States, not to God, with this pledge.
If they they tried to add, I pledge allegiance to George Bush and the AntiAmerican coalition that is running this country, I would start looking to purchase an AK-47, and a lot of ammo to fight the new revolution, and over throw the new King George. I would be prepared to die to save America.
why does the NeoRight that has usurped the great name of Republican Party
Hate the poor Americans so much.
Bush is the truly the greatest liar in our history. to believe Bush is truly to believe Satan.
AlbqOwl said:When others do, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you to beat them back. The law protects us both equally.
No, religion was not kept out of government. Then and now, the government has had chaplains to lead prayers at the beginning of each day the legislature is in session and to provide pastoral counseling for individual legislators. (These chaplains make 6 figures by the way.) There is a world of difference beween government officials or staff being religious and the government requiring others to be religious or dictating how religion is or is not to be expressed.
I have not asked for government sponsored religion in any form. I am adamently opposed to government sponsored religion.
I am also adamently opposed to government sponsored athiesm.
I am for government allowing a community to be who and what it is so long as it does not infringe on the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of others.
Sounds as though you equate the meanings of the words “secular” and “atheist”, and something being secular suggests some kind of endorsement of atheism. I bet when you drive secular nails with a secular hammer, or eat a secular steak, there’s no thought of the endorsement. What is it about government being secular that bothers the Righteous Right?AlbqOwl said:I am also adamently opposed to government sponsored athiesm.
The majority will should prevail when individual liberties are not at stake however, and the phrase 'under God' interferes with nobody's individual liberties.marchare said:The “majority will” has no power over individual liberty.
Six figures! And you insist that I pay for this through taxes! I’m writing my congressperson.
Show me how separation of church and state is an endorsment of atheism.
Columbusite said:The chaiplans shouldn't be there, but they are (even before we were the USA). I'm not paying my tax dollars for them to have chaplains and pray, they are there to represent everyone. Even though this could probably be easily found to be unconstitutional, it is tradition and would be very difficult to stop.
We do have total separation, but it obviously isn't always adhered to. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that we shouldn't try to attain it. It's right there in the Constitution (what isn't there is also as important). I oppose goverment siding with religion or non-religion, which is why I'm against having that phrase in the pledge (sides with religion). Most importantly is that it violates the Constitution.
alex said:What Constitutional rights are being chipped away at for religious people? None. Atheist's rights are though. No one is removing your right to be religious but an Atheist is declared a second-class citizen because the national pledge states "under god." You have every right to be religious without government interference. Atheists deserve that same right.
People have the right to be as religious as they want to be. The government does not. It must remain nuetral in this matter. Religious people are not higher citizens than non-religious people.
What I wrote was that religion should not be practiced by the government. I believe anyone can express their personal religious beliefs anytime they like, but they can't do it with the support of the government.AlbqOwl said:Several have said that religion should be practiced in private and not 'imposed' on others. If you are in that camp, all you have to do is say so.
26 X World Champs said:What I wrote was that religion should not be practiced by the government. I believe anyone can express their personal religious beliefs anytime they like, but they can't do it with the support of the government.
Church sponsored picnic to celebrate Xmas, sure. Government sponsored picnic to celebrate Xmas? That would be a no-no.
I agree! I agree! I agree!cnredd said:Bush sucks!
Bush sucks!
Bush sucks!
Modern judges?AlbqOwl said:No, I don't think the Constitution either says nor implies that there is total separation. What is says is that government shall not set up its own religion, it shall not require religion, and it shall not interfere with religion. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that bans religion in government or anywhere else, however. Such a notion is strictly an invention of modern judges.
Brooke Allen said:The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time.”
Prayer? Why do you call it a prayer?AlbqOwl said:No, the athiest loses nothing by the phrase 'under God' being in the prayer.
The public schools instructing children daily to say a pledge, a solemn promise, which insists that the republic is under God, and you don’t see this as an endorsement of theism, an inculcation? C’mon.AlbqOwl said:The majority will should prevail when individual liberties are not at stake however, and the phrase 'under God' interferes with nobody's individual liberties.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?