The US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion.

[neil]

I've been hearing this from multiple right wing radio talk shows/hosts; they're all basically claiming the same thing, that the US Constitution says that congress shall establish no religion. That's not what it says in the US Constitution, particularly the 1st Amendment.

Here's what the 1st Amendment does say: 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.

Congress exists to make laws & perform other legislative tasks, not to establish anything, unless the US Constitution says otherwise & it doesn't include establishing any religion.

Shapiro's not the only radio talk show host saying this, but it's interesting that he's a Harvard law school graduate, yet he's getting this totally wrong; you can hear him say this for yourself starting at around the 4:10 mark:

 

[Ug make hammer]

So you think "an establishment of religion" is just a pompous way of saying "church"?

 

[neil]

So you think "an establishment of religion" is just a pompous way of saying "church"?

I think every church (in the religious context, assuming there's more than one context of "church" that's distinct from religion) is an establishment of religion, but not every establishment of religion is (or has) a church.

If you're asking because of the "separation of church and state" expression, I don't know about pompous (nor do I care, either), but I do recognize it as a figurative way of referring to "an establishment of religion."

Why do you ask? You seem to have posed the question as though it follows from the OP by starting it off with the word "so" despite being a non sequitur - at least as far as I can tell, anyways.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I think every church (in the religious context, assuming there's more than one context of "church" that's distinct from religion) is an establishment of religion, but not every establishment of religion is (or has) a church.

If you're asking because of the "separation of church and state" expression, I don't know about pompous (nor do I care, either), but I do recognize it as a figurative way of referring to "an establishment of religion."

Why do you ask? You seem to have posed the question as though it follows from the OP by starting it off with the word "so" despite being a non sequitur - at least as far as I can tell, anyways.

I read it as "government shouldn't pass any law compatible with an established church" but you seem to be saying ... what? That it doesn't mean anything at all?

 

[neil]

I read it as "government shouldn't pass any law compatible with an established church" but you seem to be saying ... what? That it doesn't mean anything at all?

I'm saying that the US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion. Is this confusing to you or something?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'm saying that the US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion. Is this confusing to you or something?

The "no religion" thing is a red herring. Its a fiction made up in the minds of those who want to dismantle the first amendment.

 

[neil]

The "no religion" thing is a red herring. Its a fiction made up in the minds of those who want to dismantle the first amendment.

Sounds about right.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Sounds about right.

Exactly, so given that the first amendment means that the government needs to be neutral in terms of religion, which either means it deals with all religions equally or it butts out of the conversation. There is no such thing as "no religion" in that context. This means your entire argument is based on a lie.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I'm saying that the US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion. Is this confusing to you or something?

What do you think it says?

 

[neil]

Exactly, so given that the first amendment means that the government needs to be neutral in terms of religion, which either means it deals with all religions equally or it butts out of the conversation. There is no such thing as "no religion" in that context. This means your entire argument is based on a lie.

What are you talking about? You responded to an assertion that I'm making, not an argument. Please clarify.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What are you talking about? You responded to an assertion that I'm making, not an argument. Please clarify.

I am responding to your statement here

I'm saying that the US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion. Is this confusing to you or something?

And am stating my belief that your statement here is based on a lie since congress being neutral on the question does not establish "no religion" but is simply neutral.

 

[neil]

What do you think it says?

It says many things; read it for yourself if you want to know what it says.

What does it matter what I "think it says"? This thread isn't about me.

 

[Ug make hammer]

It says many things; read it for yourself if you want to know what it says.

What does it matter what I "think it says"? This thread isn't about me.

So you assert without evidence that it doesn't mean what most people think it means.

Now. If you're not going to give YOUR OPINION about what it means, then I see no reason for this thread to exist.

 

[Loulit01]

In 1802 Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association in which he described the First Amendment as erecting a "wall of separation between church and state."

 

[neil]

I am responding to your statement here

And am stating my belief that your statement here is based on a lie since congress being neutral on the question does not establish "no religion" but is simply neutral.

I don't get how you're arriving at the idea of congress being neutral, what that's supposed to mean, or how (exactly or specifically) it ties to this thread, but I would like to bring this base lie to my statement that you claim exists to the forefront.

My statement is that: the US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion.

Which one do you agree with, 1 or 2?
1. The US Constitution does say that congress shall establish no religion.
2. The US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion.

Oh, actually, hold that thought; I think I may now be seeing how there may be some confusion, as I'm typing this response. Let me see if I can try to clarify it this way - it is not my contention (or argument) that: ...therefore congress shall establish some religion, if that is what you're projecting.

Please refer back to the OP and look for the part in bold to see the point I'm trying to make, which is this: the right wing talk shows/hosts seem to be omitting & altering part of what the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment says.

The 1st clause of the 1st Amendment says this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
But these talk show hosts seem to be altering it to this: Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion,

Hope this helps.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't get how you're arriving at the idea of congress being neutral, what that's supposed to mean, or how (exactly or specifically) it ties to this thread, but I would like to bring this base lie to my statement that you claim exists to the forefront.

My statement is that: the US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion.

Which one do you agree with, 1 or 2?
1. The US Constitution does say that congress shall establish no religion.
2. The US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion.

Oh, actually, hold that thought; I think I may now be seeing how there may be some confusion, as I'm typing this response. Let me see if I can try to clarify it this way - it is not my contention (or argument) that: ...therefore congress shall establish some religion, if that is what you're projecting.

Please refer back to the OP and look for the part in bold to see the point I'm trying to make, which is this: the right wing talk shows/hosts seem to be omitting & altering part of what the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment says.

The 1st clause of the 1st Amendment says this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
But these talk show hosts seem to be altering it to this: Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion,

Hope this helps.

1. Here is the excerpt from the first amendment

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

So if congress cannot promote or restrict religion, it is effectively neutral on the matter, relegating religious expression to the individual.

2. The concept of "no religion" does not exist coming from that excerpt, only the concept of neutrality. This is why your thread is based on a lie as you are conflating neutrality to mean no religion, when they are two completely different concepts.

3. In terms of your question, I agree with neither 1 or 2, both options are wrong.

4. Your signature is annoying, could you please resize it down?

 

[neil]

So you assert without evidence that it doesn't mean what most people think it means.

Nope; you're fabricating a story that I assert without evidence that it doesn't mean what most people think it means.

Now. If you're not going to give YOUR OPINION about what it means, then I see no reason for this thread to exist.

I created this thread and I did not create it for the purpose of giving my opinion about what it means; it's about a false claim being made by some radio talk shows/hosts.

If you're asking me to clarify something, that's one thing, but it doesn't matter to me that you see no reason for this thread to exist; I'm not forcing you to read it, I'm not forcing you to post anything on this thread, and I'm not forcing you to be a member or participant on this forum. Kindly stop derailing this thread.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Kindly stop derailing this thread.

K, bye

 

[neil]

1. Here is the excerpt from the first amendment

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

So if congress cannot promote or restrict religion, it is effectively neutral on the matter, relegating religious expression to the individual.

One problem I have with what you're saying is that you're using the word "congress" instead of "the constitution" about being neutral. I can go along with the idea that the constitution is neutral on the matter, based on the way you seem to be describing it, but that doesn't translate to or transfer over to congress. The constitution and congress are 2 different things & I would agree that congress ought to be neutral on the matter, but that doesn't mean they are or will be. For example, the members of congress could blow off the constitution and and pass a law that is NOT neutral about promoting or restricting religion, in which case we have to rely on SCOTUS to rule such a law to be unconstitutional.

2. The concept of "no religion" does not exist coming from that excerpt, only the concept of neutrality. This is why your thread is based on a lie as you are conflating neutrality to mean no religion, when they are two completely different concepts.

You're going from my "argument" to my "thread", but you're still dodging what I'm actually saying, and casting somethign that isn't a statement of my own making as though it is of my own making. In other words, I'm not the one who claimed "...no religion", I'm presenting what someone else said, not me. We are in agreement & I would assert that the concept of "no religion" does not exist coming from that excerpt.

It's Ben Shapiro & other radio talk shows/hosts saying "...no religion", not neil. I hope this is clear to you; please let me know if it somehow isn't, for whatever reason.

3. In terms of your question, I agree with neither 1 or 2, both options are wrong.

Ok fine, but just FYI, that's logically absurd since they're true/false opposites of each other.

4. Your signature is annoying, could you please resize it down?

Sure, I'll look into figuring out how to fix that after I post this reply.

 

[Slartibartfast]

One problem I have with what you're saying is that you're using the word "congress" instead of "the constitution" about being neutral. I can go along with the idea that the constitution is neutral on the matter, based on the way you seem to be describing it, but that doesn't translate to or transfer over to congress. The constitution and congress are 2 different things & I would agree that congress ought to be neutral on the matter, but that doesn't mean they are or will be. For example, the members of congress could blow off the constitution and and pass a law that is NOT neutral about promoting or restricting religion, in which case we have to rely on SCOTUS to rule such a law to be unconstitutional.

"congress shall make no law"... Effectively it means the whole of government unless one wants to try to interpret that to mean its just congress and that a president can make an executive action that is either explicitly pro or anti religion (for example), since that is the executive branch. With this current SCOTUS, they may even give it a pass.

In regards to the rest of this, you are describing how things work today.

You're going from my "argument" to my "thread", but you're still dodging what I'm actually saying, and casting somethign that isn't a statement of my own making as though it is of my own making. In other words, I'm not the one who claimed "...no religion", I'm presenting what someone else said, not me. We are in agreement & I would assert that the concept of "no religion" does not exist coming from that excerpt.

I am not dodging it, I am calling it a lie and I am stating that you are promoting a lie. That's not a dodge, its an accusation.

It's Ben Shapiro & other radio talk shows/hosts saying "...no religion", not neil. I hope this is clear to you; please let me know if it somehow isn't, for whatever reason.

Shapiro is a known nutter that profits off of dupes. My time is more valuable then to be wasted on him.

Ok fine, but just FYI, that's logically absurd since they're true/false opposites of each other.

Incorrect. If your premise is wrong (and it is) then the question you pose with its inherent assumptions being wrong (which is a restatement of me stating that your premise is wrong in different words) then the question you pose itself is an absurdity and is unanswerable.

If an entity is neutral on a matter, then it is neither respecting nor prohibiting something, which means it is neither promoting something nor the lack of something. It would be like asking the NRA's stance on parrots. The NRA does not advocate or have rules about parrots or a lack of parrots, nor do they have an interest in deciding which parrot is best or which parrot should be banned. They are neutral. This principle is the same with congress, religion, and the first amendment. (The difference being that the NRA has no parrot related bylaws or policies, but I haven't had my coffee yet, so this is the best analogy I could come up with).

Sure, I'll look into figuring out how to fix that after I post this reply.

Thank you. I get your passionate about your ancestral country, but that thing takes up my entire screen when I scroll down. I have a 24" 1080p monitor, so that picture is quite large.

 

[neil]

"congress shall make no law"... Effectively it means the whole of government unless one wants to try to interpret that to mean its just congress and that a president can make an executive action that is either explicitly pro or anti religion (for example), since that is the executive branch. With this current SCOTUS, they may even give it a pass.

In regards to the rest of this, you are describing how things work today.

I am not dodging it, I am calling it a lie

Yes, it basically is a lie; that's the whole point of this thread. You're stating the obvious.

and I am stating that you are promoting a lie.

You're talking about some lie that you're saying exists, but you don't explicitly state what this lie, in itself, actually is. What specifically is this lie that I'm supposedly promoting? Once you present it, then I want to move on to a potential follow-up question, which is this: how am I promoting it?

That's not a dodge, its an accusation.

Alright, fine; you're dodging what I'm actually saying for the associated purpose of making your accusation.

Shapiro is a known nutter that profits off of dupes. My time is more valuable then to be wasted on him.

Well, that conflicts with the fact that this thread is basically about him, including a link to a Youtube video of one of the segments of his show & you have posted 5 times (so far) on this thread.

Incorrect. If your premise is wrong (and it is) then the question you pose with its inherent assumptions being wrong (which is a restatement of me stating that your premise is wrong in different words) then the question you pose itself is an absurdity and is unanswerable.

Neither my existence nor any premises I may have put forth have any bearing on the question.

Ben Shapiro said that the constitution says that congress shall establish no religion - is Ben Shapiro right, or is Ben Shapiro wrong?

Don't attempt to spin me or anything I've said into your answer, because neither my existence nor anything I've said has any relevance to the answer for the question.

If an entity is neutral on a matter, then it is neither respecting nor prohibiting something, which means it is neither promoting something nor the lack of something. It would be like asking the NRA's stance on parrots.

You're attacking a strawman; the question is about what the US Constitution says, not anything about a stance by congress about something.

Thank you. I get your passionate about Columbia or whatever country, but that thing takes up my entire screen when I scroll down. I have a 24" 1080p monitor, so that picture is quite large.

You're welcome & it's done; better?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, it basically is a lie; that's the whole point of this thread. You're stating the obvious.


You're talking about some lie that you're saying exists, but you don't explicitly state what this lie, in itself, actually is. What specifically is this lie that I'm supposedly promoting? Once you present it, then I want to move on to a potential follow-up question, which is this: how am I promoting it?

The lie is the idea that congress establishes no religion. The lie is your thread title. This is the fourth time I have stated this.

Alright, fine; you're dodging what I'm actually saying for the associated purpose of making your accusation.

No, I am declaring it is a lie. I am opposing it, not dodging it. This is the second time I have stated this.

Well, that conflicts with the fact that this thread is basically about him, including a link to a Youtube video of one of the segments of his show & you have posted 5 times (so far) on this thread.

I find this thread worth my time as I think the health of Christianity in this country is in it remaining nonpolitical. In countries where Christianity was more established by government, those societies have very large (larger than the US) segments of the population that are atheist. Look at Belgium for example.

Neither my existence nor any premises I may have put forth have any bearing on the question.

Ben Shapiro said that the constitution says that congress shall establish no religion - is Ben Shapiro right, or is Ben Shapiro wrong?

Don't attempt to spin me or anything I've said into your answer, because neither my existence nor anything I've said has any relevance to the answer for the question.

I haven't been spinning, I have stated fact as I perceive it.

In terms of your video, it is 46 minutes long, give me a starting and ending timestamp that summarizes the argument and if its not too long (more than 5 minutes), I will view it and give you my answer.

You're attacking a strawman; the question is about what the US Constitution says, not anything about a stance by congress about something.

I am discussing what the constitution says and even quotes it, so your accusation here is provably incorrect, see post 16

You're welcome & it's done; better?

Thank you

 

[Cameron]

I've been hearing this from multiple right wing radio talk shows/hosts; they're all basically claiming the same thing, that the US Constitution says that congress shall establish no religion. That's not what it says in the US Constitution, particularly the 1st Amendment.

Here's what the 1st Amendment does say: 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.

Congress exists to make laws & perform other legislative tasks, not to establish anything, unless the US Constitution says otherwise & it doesn't include establishing any religion.

Shapiro's not the only radio talk show host saying this, but it's interesting that he's a Harvard law school graduate, yet he's getting this totally wrong; you can hear him say this for yourself starting at around the 4:10 mark:

Respecting

1. in view of: considering
2. with respect to: concerning

What part of either definition indicates to you that Congress could pass a law establishing a religion?

 

[neil]

The lie is the idea that congress establishes no religion.

Ok, thank you for specifying this.

The lie is your thread title. This is the fourth time I have stated this.

Fine, if you say so, whatever, but this good - we're finally making some progress!

Ok, here's the actual wording of the title: The US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion.

I'll get to why I underlined one of the words in just a moment.

If it is a lie, as you are claiming, then what (according to you) is the truth?

Is it this? The US Constitution does say that congress shall establish no religion.

The only change is that I removed the underlined word.

If that's not the correct "truth", then what is the correct "truth"?

If that is the correct "truth", then please show where that can be found in the US Constitution.

No, I am declaring it is a lie. I am opposing it, not dodging it. This is the second time I have stated this.

I find this thread worth my time as I think the health of Christianity in this country is in it remaining nonpolitical. In countries where Christianity was more established by government, those societies have very large (larger than the US) segments of the population that are atheist. Look at Belgium for example.

I haven't been spinning, I have stated fact as I perceive it.

In terms of your video, it is 46 minutes long, give me a starting and ending timestamp that summarizes the argument and if its not too long (more than 5 minutes), I will view it and give you my answer.

You'll hear what I'm referring to between the 4:10 through 4:24 mark.

I am discussing what the constitution says and even quotes it, so your accusation here is provably incorrect, see post 16

I quoted the same thing in the OP; you're essentually just reiterating part of my quote.

Thank you

Anytime

 

[neil]

Respecting

1. in view of: considering
2. with respect to: concerning

What part of either definition indicates to you that Congress could pass a law establishing a religion?

Neither, of course & whatever is causing or prompting you to pose such a question goes fundamentally contrary to my assertion/position/point/theme/etc in/from the OP.