No, they aren't the same thing, otherwise they would have just written "establishing."
Okay. But say 95% of the town was of a different religion than you, and every building and open lot owned by the government was covered with religious displays from that religion. Just how far do they have to go before it crosses the line?
Just take your case to court (without your gun, they have metal detectors).
Thanks for being a reasonable, sane, informed person on this thread btw.
Here's hoping this guy isn't a troll. :lol: Might actually be funny!
I would like to express my deep hatred of people of the troll persuasion. I would also like to assert my high level of concurrence in the matter at present.
I've learned never to assume that someone is so preposterous that they must be joking.
Oh for God's sake. I explained it.
(more crap dropped)
Okay, I've explained this twice. One more time.
To erect religious symbols on public property may violate the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause in the First Amendment for two reasons that you may not be grasping:
1. Putting a bunch of religious symbols on public property can appear that the government is endorsing religion, which violates the establishment clause.
2. Public property is owned by the government, and it requires laws to be passed to create and maintain it.
So instead of throwing more crap at me, tell me what you either disagree with or don't understand in the above so I can clarify, okay?
Take a deep breath, maybe drink a beer, calm yourself down, and read post 197.
You can recognize and respect all you want so long as there is no LAW doing so. Decorations do not equal a law nor do they equal the final opinion or actions of the Federal Government.
I would like to express my deep hatred of people of the troll persuasion. I would also like to assert my high level of concurrence in the matter at present.
So you'll put up with everything just short of that, huh?
How about a gigantic golden mosque built with taxpayer funds in the middle of the town square, with a big sign saying "Public Town Mosque, Allah is Great"? And a law requiring women to wear burkas? Nothing in there about forcing to recognize any god.
(But "recognize their god" is awful close to "respecting and establishment of religion." Interesting choice of words, when you could has simply said "worship.")
Oooh, was that a clever jab at my posts? You're forgetting there's a little substance behind me and my posts, and some of these other trolls (And mindless idiots) are just shells.
Requiring people to wear clothing is over the line. Simply erecting a symbol is ok. They cannot infringe upon my rights; life, liberty, and property. Other than that, it's fair game.
I see no qualitative distinction between the two. This is where we'll just have to fundamentally interpret it different. I personally would rather err on the side of limiting the federal government's power to intervene as there is no force involved.
As mentioned before, if force is involved, it is another matter.
When they try to enact any law that forces me to worship (or prohibits me from doing so). Putting up symbols is a local matter, not a constitutional one IMO, for the reasons I already stated.
Of course. I was just using hyperbole...
and thank you as well.
Decorations do equal a law.
Everything the government does is authorized by law one way or the other. It's called the "rule of law."
The public land was bought with a law. The people managing it do so with authorization of a law. The money to buy the decorations were authorized with a law. Don't get hung up on that word "law."
You don't have to believe me. Go read the case law. Oops, there's that word again.
Requiring people to wear clothing is over the line.
Why exactly?
You aren't being forced to worship any god. There's no official religion declared. By your own standards, passing a law requiring your wife and daughters to wear burkas should be perfectly constitutional.
Decorations do equal a law.
Everything the government does is authorized by law one way or the other. It's called the "rule of law."
The public land was bought with a law. The people managing it do so with authorization of a law. The money to buy the decorations were authorized with a law. Don't get hung up on that word "law."
You don't have to believe me. Go read the case law. Oops, there's that word again.
Why exactly?
You aren't being forced to worship any god. There's no official religion declared. By your own standards, passing a law requiring your wife and daughters to wear burkas should be perfectly constitutional.
Life, liberty, property. My body is my property, my cloths are my property. I'll do with them as I like. And no, it's not perfectly constitutional as it's an infringement of my right. There is some level of authority the government has when it comes to dress in public which we have established through social contract (such as nudity laws). Beyond that, the government may not get involved. Just as it should not get involved over public displays of religious symbols.
An act of legislation is a law. Decorations are not.
Public land is bought and paid for by the People of that community. It's their property, they may do with it as they like. If they want a Christmas tree, they can have a Christmas tree. If they want a menorah, they can have a menorah. Their land, their rules, their choice.
Nothing says government will not usurp powers not meant for it. In fact, that's the natural progression of government. The founders warned us well of that one.
An act of legislation that gives people money to buy decorations and says they can buy decorations sure as hell is a law. Don't be thickheaded.
Bull.
The Constitution LIMITS the power of the government. No matter how many people want something, they can't violate the Constitution. They can't vote to violate the First Amendment. Or do you think they could, say, vote to ban the carrying of Bibles on sidewalks?
Life, liberty, property. My body is my property, my cloths are my property. I'll do with them as I like.
And no, it's not perfectly constitutional as it's an infringement of my right. There is some level of authority the government has when it comes to dress in public which we have established through social contract (such as nudity laws). Beyond that, the government may not get involved.
An act of legislation that gives people money to buy decorations and says they can buy decorations sure as hell is a law. Don't be thickheaded.
If the people of the community wish for it, they may do it. Their money, their land, their choice.
I cannot have a say, the federal government cannot have a say, rightfully.
Display of religious symbols on private land does not violate the Constitution. So it's ok.
obama is irritating me do you people not agree obama is not spending enough on programs to build more bridges and roads taxes are far to low in this country at the moment
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?