Obama Attends Church for 1st Time in5 Months.

The 14th Amendment applies the 1st Amendment to states as well Cato, thus that first Amendment becomes "Congress AND The State shall make no laws...".

And while theoretically, children could be excused from attendance, few have the wherewithal to ask to be excused. And the ones with parents who insist their children be excused are cast as outsiders.

I understand what you're saying Cato about the government making a law but I agree with the court on this decision. When the state compels the child to attend school and the school mandates a reading from the bible or sanctions a school wide prayer, the state is in effect "making a law...” That’s the view the court took and I agree with it. And in my humble opinion, it falls directly inline with what Jesus was saying when he said "Render unto Ceasar..."

Were the school to say a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ and then a Jewish prayer, a Buddhist Prayer, a Muslim prayer and any other prayer one can think of, that would be something completely different. Or had the offered readings from the Koran and other religious text, then it would be legal but to narrow it down to a Christian prayer is where and sanction one religion is where it violates the 1st Amendment.

Aaron wrote:The 14th Amendment applies the 1st Amendment to states as well Cato, thus that first Amendment becomes "Congress AND The State shall make no laws...".

And while theoretically, children could be excused from attendance, few have the wherewithal to ask to be excused. And the ones with parents who insist their children be excused are cast as outsiders.

I understand what you're saying Cato about the government making a law but I agree with the court on this decision. When the state compels the child to attend school and the school mandates a reading from the bible or sanctions a school wide prayer, the state is in effect "making a law...” That’s the view the court took and I agree with it. And in my humble opinion, it falls directly inline with what Jesus was saying when he said "Render unto Ceasar..."

Were the school to say a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ and then a Jewish prayer, a Buddhist Prayer, a Muslim prayer and any other prayer one can think of, that would be something completely different. Or had the offered readings from the Koran and other religious text, then it would be legal but to narrow it down to a Christian prayer is where and sanction one religion is where it violates the 1st Amendment.

I disagree. Here is why. First, the 13th amendment abolished slavery, right behind it comes the 14th amendment. The intent of the 14th amendment was that of equal rights for all citizens, in including former slaves. It appears to me the intent of the writers of the 14th amendment was to ensure that our natural rights applled to everyone equally, that no state could write anyone or group out of having the same right enjoyed by everyone else.

The fact of the matter is that the rights that existed before the 14th amendment was written, apply to all citizens. Since the issue of the chruch of state was not an issue before the 14th amendment, and the whole purpose of the 14th was to grant the rights and protections of all citizens, it is a misuse of the 14th to use it to limit state's rights

So you don't think all citizens have the right to participate, or not participate in Christianity? Or is it you think that the rights and protections detailed in the Constitution only apply to Protestants? Let's be quite clear here, because the particular type of prayer you desire in the public schools is very specific and would be ill suited for many Christian religions such as Roman & Orthodox Catholics and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and probably others.

We'll have to agree to disagree Cato but even if you were right, as our founding fathers truly did not want state sponsored religion, I would think a true constitutionalist would not agree with schools imposing religious views on anyone regardless of whether you agree with the religion or not.

After all, as is happening in France, with a high birth rate, Islam could easily become the dominant religion in America in less then 100 years. Were that the case would you want your future grandkids to be subjected to mandatory readings from the Koran and prayer 5 times a day and someone saying that theoretically, the readings and prayer were not mandatory?

Sometimes you have to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing. And besides, when Jesus said "render unto Ceasar," I would think he wouldn't care what the 14th Amendment said, he would only want one reading his word or praying because it was something they wanted to do, not because a government official made it mandatory.

Stephanie wrote:So you don't think all citizens have the right to participate, or not participate in Christianity? Or is it you think that the rights and protections detailed in the Constitution only apply to Protestants? Let's be quite clear here, because the particular type of prayer you desire in the public schools is very specific and would be ill suited for many Christian religions such as Roman & Orthodox Catholics and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and probably others.

Stephanie, I am an originalist constitutionally. I am also a literalist.

The 1st amendment says in plain english the following: Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting the Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The 10th Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Congress and congress alone is all that is limited from making law respecting the establishment of a state religion. States one the other hand, under the US Cosntitution are pretty much free to do as they please. Historically, States did have state religions for a while. They ceased the practice however.

One last point here before I go on, all the 14th amendment does is keep the states from making laws that would remove the protections of the Bill of Rights from certain people. In other words, the Bill of Rights applies to all citizens, not just white anglo-saxon, protestants.

Where my arguement is and what galls me has little to do with religion. It has to do with the coruption of US Constitution for the sake of an agenda. The US Constitution is a legal document that says what it says. It has a method to change what it says, if necessary. Yet, many, choose to change it based on the agenda of a group of judges. That is why there is such a fight when judtices are appointed tot he Supreme Court. It is evil to read into any legal document something that isn't there.

Now, you seem to be asking my views on religion and the state. I get a kick on how people get all worked up over a Christmas Display or the 10 commandments being on public property. To me all that is illustrated is first, many people are really thin skinned, Second, many think they have the right to use the force of law push their agenda, and third, government has become far to encompassing.

I have enough respect for people to allow them to do as they please. I don't have to participate. If muslims want to put an islamic display on public property that is their business, it doesn't hurt or really affect me. The odds are quite good they are paying taxes just like me, so why should I or anyone else have and issue. To quote a line from "The Outlaw Josey Wales" "Governments don't live together, men do" I is time we remembered that fact.

Am I to take it then you have no problem with religious displays on public property, when the display is paid for by other funds than tax dollars?

Who pays the cost of maintaining the property? The public? Nope. No permanent religious displays.

Please note, this is not indicative of "christian bashing"

TerryRC wrote:Am I to take it then you have no problem with religious displays on public property, when the display is paid for by other funds than tax dollars?

Who pays the cost of maintaining the property? The public? Nope. No permanent religious displays.

Please note, this is not indicative of "christian bashing"

Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States. Or did you not read the Salazar v. Buono decision. The cross at the heart of that decision in which Justice Kennedy stated "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm" has been in place since 1934.

Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States. Or did you not read the Salazar v. Buono decision. The cross at the heart of that decision in which Justice Kennedy stated "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm" has been in place since 1934.

I'm aware of that. I was asked my opinion. I just can't believe the standards will ever be applied fairly. I also said that I would let HISTORICAL DISPLAYS like this cross stay in place but that no new permanent religious displays (of any kind) should be allowed on public land.

I an familiar with this decision. You are the one that brought it to my attention. I just think it is wrong, like the SCOTUS decision that expanded eminent domain to allow property to be taken by the state and sold to private developers.

Wrong.

I'm sorry but your disagreement with the decisoin does not make it wrong. This decison is in line with what the 1st Amendment states and according to the constitution is the only right deision that the court could arrive at. The only thing wrong with it is that it wasn't a 9-0 decision.

I'm sorry but your disagreement with the decisoin does not make it wrong. This decison is in line with what the 1st Amendment states and according to the constitution is the only right deision that the court could arrive at. The only thing wrong with it is that it wasn't a 9-0 decision.

Right, because the government should be subsidizing or giving tacit approval to religions or religious statements.

No danger there... .

No, because the 1st Amendment is clear to anyone without an agenda. Those who hate religion generally have an agenda.

No, because the 1st Amendment is clear to anyone without an agenda. Those who hate religion generally have an agenda.

And those who favor one religion or another also have an agenda. .

ziggy wrote:

No, because the 1st Amendment is clear to anyone without an agenda. Those who hate religion generally have an agenda.

And those who favor one religion or another also have an agenda. .

Oh, I get it, like you favor secular humanism. Thanks for clearing that up.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

No, because the 1st Amendment is clear to anyone without an agenda. Those who hate religion generally have an agenda.

And those who favor one religion or another also have an agenda. .

Oh, I get it, like you favor secular humanism. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well Cato, it was you who said that anything could be a religion- even the arts and the study of the natural sciences- which the Constitution tells Congress to promote. But somehow I don't think that secularism and the arts and the sciences are the kind of "religion" the 1st Amendment refers to. But I am certain that a man of your religious and moral caliber and constitutional education knows far more about it all than a dumb ole' Ziggy. So whatever.

ziggy wrote:

No, because the 1st Amendment is clear to anyone without an agenda. Those who hate religion generally have an agenda.

And those who favor one religion or another also have an agenda. .

Perhaps. That doesn't change the validity of the 1st Amendment as written by our founding fathers.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

No, because the 1st Amendment is clear to anyone without an agenda. Those who hate religion generally have an agenda.

And those who favor one religion or another also have an agenda. .

Oh, I get it, like you favor secular humanism. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well Cato, it was you who said that anything could be a religion- even the arts and the study of the natural sciences- which the Constitution tells Congress to promote. But somehow I don't think that secularism and the arts and the sciences are the kind of "religion" the 1st Amendment refers to. But I am certain that a man of your religious and moral caliber and constitutional education knows far more about it all than a dumb ole' Ziggy. So whatever.

Of course this is by means of the copyright clause which was placed in the constituion to protect works, not promote as we define the word today. As you screwed the pooch on that one once before, I thought I would clarify it.

No thanks needed.

What it says is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

But Cato says that religion as referred to in the 1st Amendment includes the arts and sciences, as well as secularism. So it is Cato who has "screwed the pooch".

I've read what Cato has said and while I don't necessary agree with his assessment, you're the one that is wrong. He is stating that the arts and sciences can be viewed in a religious manner. He's saying that one can worship at the alter of “the arts and sciences.”

The clause you are quoting simply states that the “the arts and sciences” are “securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. You're trying to compare apples and oranges and it doesn't work. “

Apples and oranges, or in your case (imo intentional) word games. You’re the one humping snoopy. Let go of the dog Ziggy before the misses catches you.

Aaron wrote:I've read what Cato has said and while I don't necessary agree with his assessment, you're the one that is wrong. He is stating that the arts and sciences can be viewed in a religious manner. He's saying that one can worship at the alter of “the arts and sciences.”

That is not what Cato said. Why can't you let him speak for himself?

Cato said that the arts and sciences are religion- not simply that they can be viewed in a religious manner. He used the teaching of evolution and global warming as examples of science as religion. His full implication is that the 1st Amendment applies to evolution and global warming as religions as much as it does to Catholicism or to Anglicanism or any other religion. And Cato said that secular humanism is the default religion- that it becomes a state religion in the absence of other government sponsored religion.

And yet you accuse ME of playing word games?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I've read what Cato has said and while I don't necessary agree with his assessment...

That is not what Cato said. Why can't you let him speak for himself?

First, I acknowledged that I didn’t agree with is assessment. And I let him speak for himself.

My comments to you were to state that you are wrong in your interpretation of the Copyright Clause. I told you that a month ago when you butchered, I told you again earlier today and I’ll tell you the next time you butcher a part of the Constitution.

If you don’t like my correcting you, don’t butcher the Constitution. If you feel you must then expect to be corrected when you are wrong.

Next

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I've read what Cato has said and while I don't necessary agree with his assessment, you're the one that is wrong. He is stating that the arts and sciences can be viewed in a religious manner. He's saying that one can worship at the alter of “the arts and sciences.”

That is not what Cato said. Why can't you let him speak for himself?

Cato said that the arts and sciences are religion- not simply that they can be viewed in a religious manner. He used the teaching of evolution and global warming as examples of science as religion. His full implication is that the 1st Amendment applies to evolution and global warming as religions as much as it does to Catholicism or to Anglicanism or any other religion. And Cato said that secular humanism is the default religion- that it becomes a state religion in the absence of other government sponsored religion.

And yet you accuse ME of playing word games?

Aaron is absolutely correct.

What I have been saying all along is that the 1st amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. When the Federal Government, be it congress or the Federal Courts through their rulings makes law respecting secular humanism at the expense of christainity or visa versa they are in violation of the first amendment.

You are the one that has played game after game with some for the most ignorant examples I have ever seen. This latest witht he copyright law really takes the cake however.

If one were to follow your reasoning Ziggy, anything that is derived from the the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and his book Dianetics in 1950 qualifies for copyright protection which would include the religion Scientology.

That is simply not the case. While his original writings certainly remain his property and as such do qualify for lifetime protection under the copyright clause to do with as his estate pleases (he passed away in 1986), the religion that derived from his writings enjoys no such protection.

Cato wrote:What I have been saying all along is that the 1st amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. When the Federal Government, be it congress or the Federal Courts through their rulings makes law respecting secular humanism at the expense of christainity or visa versa they are in violation of the first amendment.

What law has either Congress or the Federal Courts made respecting secular humanism as a religion? The 1st Amendment does not say anything about one religion at the expense of Christianity or any other religion. The state of PA and the local school districts there were establishing Christian doctrine as the official religion of PA public schools, at the expense of religious neutrality. All the Federal Courts said was that, constitutionally, the state and its schools cannot do that.

You are the one that has played game after game with some for the most ignorant examples I have ever seen.

Again Cato, you are the one who said that science is religion- specifically the teaching of evolution and global warming, for example. And you are the one that said secularism becomes the default religion in the absence of any religion.

This latest with the copyright law really takes the cake however.

I made that reference to show that not only are the arts and sciences not religion, but that the Constitution specifically promotes the arts and sciences. If the Founders recognized science as religion as you do, then why would they direct Congress to promote science?

If one were to follow your reasoning Ziggy, anything that is derived from the the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and his book Dianetics in 1950 qualifies for copyright protection which would include the religion Scientology.

No, but that would be Cato's reasoning if we accept Cato's assertion that science is religion.

ziggy wrote: What law has either Congress or the Federal Courts made respecting secular humanism as a religion? The 1st Amendment does not say anything about one religion at the expense of Christianity or any other religion. The state of PA and the local school districts there were establishing Christian doctrine as the official religion of PA public schools, at the expense of religious neutrality. All the Federal Courts said was that, constitutionally, the state and its schools cannot do that.

What the federal courts did by their rulings was make case law. You know that as well as I.

As far as what laws have been made, are you saying that you would accept the teaching of creationism in a public school or allow a religious display at chrstmas on public property

ziggy wrote: Again Cato, you are the one who said that science is religion- specifically the teaching of evolution and global warming, for example. And you are the one that said secularism becomes the default religion in the absence of any religion.

Nope, I'm the one that took the time to look up the defination of religion and point out that just about anything can become a religion, including science. You are the one that don't seem to have the mental capasity to grasp that concept.

ziggy wrote: I made that reference to show that not only are the arts and sciences not religion, but that the Constitution specifically promotes the arts and sciences. If the Founders recognized science as religion as you do, then why would they direct Congress to promote science?

And as I said you grasping for straws.