One Nation, Under God

[Vandeervecken]

“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, & to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”


If I am confined to my home or church to practice my faith, then my rights will be violated. The First Amendment guarantees us the freedom of religion, not from religion.

2 points.

You cannot have freedom OF religion without Freedom FROM religion.

Not allowing you to use the government to force your beleifs on others does not confine you to only practice your faith in home or church.

 

[Mark A Shrider]

2 points.

You cannot have freedom OF religion without Freedom FROM religion.

Not allowing you to use the government to force your beleifs on others does not confine you to only practice your faith in home or church.

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

My right to the free exercise of my religion is right there in text. Your supposed freedom FROM religion cannot be found without a serious stretch & misinterpretation. How is expressing my belief in public the act of forcing my beliefs on you? A belief cannot be forced upon anyone who does not accept those beliefs. I cannot make you be a Christian. If I am not allowed to express my belief in the public square where besides home & church may I express it or practice my religion? You see, at this point you're putting limitations on where & when my religion can be practiced &/or expressed. Sorry, but that's prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Everyone likes to concentrate on the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...but fail to recognize the second half of it. Allowing my public expression of religion in no way offends the establishment clause as a law is not a result.

 

[Duke]

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

My right to the free exercise of my religion is right there in text. Your supposed freedom FROM religion cannot be found without a serious stretch & misinterpretation. How is expressing my belief in public the act of forcing my beliefs on you? A belief cannot be forced upon anyone who does not accept those beliefs. I cannot make you be a Christian. If I am not allowed to express my belief in the public square where besides home & church may I express it or practice my religion? You see, at this point you're putting limitations on where & when my religion can be practiced &/or expressed. Sorry, but that's prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Everyone likes to concentrate on the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...but fail to recognize the second half of it. Allowing my public expression of religion in no way offends the establishment clause as a law is not a result.

I don't think you understand what he is trying to say. Why don't you read his post again?


Duke

 

[Iriemon]

The Declaration of Independence declares that we have rights endowed by our creator.

I would say everyone whom signed it said that we are "under god".

Not only that, but the Declaration of Independence was a document in which we explained why America was declaring herself independent of her former colonial master. It otherwise does not purport to be a document on how the nation is to be governed. That document is called the Constitution. The Constitution, upon which the government of our nation is founded, nowhere has the word, Jesus, God, creator, or anything refering to a deity.

 

[Deegan]

This will never be settled, history shows that the founding fathers believed in a God, creator, but did not want religion and government to mix. That said, they also did not intend for what has been transpiring today, they would not agree with removing tiny crosses from city trucks, or be alarmed because the pledge mentions "under God". It's just the work of those who don't believe, and their attempt to make themselves feel better, more secure in their beliefs, if they don't see it, they are not reminded of the possibility of eternal damnation. Should we allow them to feel secure, or should we allow the other side to feel secure? This is the question, and yet I tend to believe that the right would be correct in their interpretation, as the founding fathers were obviously religious people, but were also rational people. I think they would be as disgusted as I am, and I'm not even religious. Why does that bother some, if there is no God, and you don't believe in one, why on earth would that bother you so much? I'll tell you why, it's because their goal is to rid the country of such wacko's. I mean, we have college professors that think religious people are nuts, and that they are wasting their time, such arrogance, it's really hard to swallow.

 

[Vandeervecken]

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

My right to the free exercise of my religion is right there in text. Your supposed freedom FROM religion cannot be found without a serious stretch & misinterpretation. How is expressing my belief in public the act of forcing my beliefs on you? A belief cannot be forced upon anyone who does not accept those beliefs. I cannot make you be a Christian. If I am not allowed to express my belief in the public square where besides home & church may I express it or practice my religion? You see, at this point you're putting limitations on where & when my religion can be practiced &/or expressed. Sorry, but that's prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Everyone likes to concentrate on the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...but fail to recognize the second half of it. Allowing my public expression of religion in no way offends the establishment clause as a law is not a result.

Attacking that same straw man again? Once again. Your right to freely practice your religion is in no way curtailed by you not being allowed to use the state, agents of the state, or your job with the state to promote that religion to others. When acting as an individual you may express your religious beliefs all you like. Just as the courthouse should not have a large sign that says, "Hail Satan" or "There Is No God," neither should it have a Cross or the 10 Commandments.

I recognize the second half quite well and nothing I have said nor advocated in any way violates it. BTW Choosing NO religion is still choosing a religion. The First Amendment does not say you are free to choose your religion form this list.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Not only that, but the Declaration of Independence was a document in which we explained why America was declaring herself independent of her former colonial master. It otherwise does not purport to be a document on how the nation is to be governed. That document is called the Constitution. The Constitution, upon which the government of our nation is founded, nowhere has the word, Jesus, God, creator, or anything refering to a deity.

Nearly true. There is no meaningful mention of god in any form in the Constitution. However the term of art in use at the time for the date is used in Article 7.

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 year of our Lord 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.

It was a usage devoid of religious content though. Just offered to stop someone from trying to beat you over the head with it.

 

[Iriemon]

Nearly true. There is no meaningful mention of god in any form in the Constitution. However the term of art in use at the time for the date is used in Article 7.

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 year of our Lord 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.

It was a usage devoid of religious content though. Just offered to stop someone from trying to beat you over the head with it.

Good point, I stand corrected.