jgg, then let's just let the SCOTUS decide the issue and we'll all abide by it like it or not.
On Nov 14, 1:50 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By seeking to DENYING any Public Square expression of Religious > Expression by defining any Religous wording, symbols, or potential > expression as "Establishing a State Religion"... The Mount Soledad > Memorial Cross is one example of this.. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21598-2005Mar9.html > > The seeking to restrict an an all use by the Boy Scout of public > property is another... Yes Hollywood SECULARIST DO TRY TO USE THE > COURTS TO DENY RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION in the name of an absolute ban of > Religious Expression in the Public Square... > > >>> One question I have is why would a state or nation WANT an official > >>> religion? > > This of course is a standard straw-man argument... Why??? NO ONE IS > ARGUING FOR AN OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION... What is being argued is the > Constitutional RIGHT to Religious Expression in the Public Square... > > No let me ask you some questions > > 1) Why do Secularist insist on removing the cross at the Mount Soledad > Memorial when the cross there is the symbol of a war memorial and NOT > Christianity (Individual can and do have the right to their > particilar religion symbol on their gravestone (which also has been > attacked as "State Establishment of Religion"))??? > > 2) Why did the Secularist go to court to ban the Boy Scouts from > leasing public property in San Diego (in which the Boy Scouts were > committed to improve the land at their cost)??? > > On Nov 13, 5:54 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > jgg, > > > Most interesting. Secularists have no intention of denying any and all > > religious expression. Where did you get that idea? Are you talking > > about individuals, whom have been described as secularists, expressing > > such a personal opinion? > > One question I have is why would a state or nation WANT an official > > religion? > > > On Nov 13, 3:23 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > No. Today the issue is where does a "state" religion end and "free > > > exercise of religion" begin... So a student led prayer can be > > > Constitutional while a teacher run prayer is not... Again, > > > Secularists wish to expand on this to deny any and all religious > > > expression (contrary to a vast majority of American opinion) And > > > this thoroughout our history has changed... Now in France, the > > > government has the right to deny any "religious expression" in deems > > > fit... Two very different models... > > > >http://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&pg=PA425&lpg=PA425&dq=m... > > > > On Nov 13, 2:54 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > jgg, > > > > > Was a suit filed, did the SCOTUS hear it and make a ruling? > > > > > On Nov 13, 12:52 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > And what a shame the Mass. HAD a offical state church until 1838... > > > > > Yet it was NOT declared unConstitutional... The theory is that that > > > > > NATIOANAL government would not setablish any particilar sect as a > > > > > State Church... Many folks have tried to expand that definition into > > > > > removing religion from the Public Square... Which the 1st Amendment > > > > > clear DOES NOT do... > > > > > > On Nov 13, 12:57 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Ramakazee, > > > > > > > What a shame the Constituion had not yet been signed when these > > > > > > statements were made. Some were made before the United States had > > > > > > even > > > > > > won it's revolution. The sole exception being George Washington's > > > > > > farewell speech. Even then he only mentions "religious people" and > > > > > > does not specify which religion. Guess that wasn't important to him. > > > > > > Just to help you out in the future the Constituion was signed > > > > > > 9/17/1787 and the 1st Ammendment, which this conversation is > > > > > > supposed > > > > > > to be about, was ratified dec. 15, 1791. Anything before that was > > > > > > just > > > > > > some guys opinion. > > > > > > > We are ALL "braddah's" in the eyes of God my lad. > > > > > > > On Nov 13, 11:26 am, Kamakazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Lemme help you braddah: > > > > > > > > George Washington: > > > > > > > > Farewell Address: The name of American, which belongs to you, in > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, > > > > > > > more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With > > > > > > > slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and > > > > > > > later: > > > > > > > "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national > > > > > > > morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." > > > > > > > > “ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and > > > > > > > Bible.” > > > > > > > > “What students would learn in American schools above all is the > > > > > > > religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs > > > > > > > May > > > > > > > 12, 1779] > > > > > > > > "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our > > > > > > > highest > > > > > > > glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May > > > > > > > 2, > > > > > > > 1778, at Valley Forge] > > > > > > > > Uncle? > > > > > > > > On Nov 13, 11:08 am, Kamakazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Holly, still waiting. > > > > > > > > > On Nov 13, 7:55 am, Kamakazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How many treaties has the US had since its inception? You > > > > > > > > > grab a line > > > > > > > > > out of one and act as if you've struck gold. > > > > > > > > > > You've got nothing. Even less then that. > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 5:49 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Gaar, > > > > > > > > > > > Too late to save you boy, he's left the field. > > > > > > > > > > What you are talking about lad is a official document, you > > > > > > > > > > know like a > > > > > > > > > > TREATY, that is ON display. And that document dosen't say a > > > > > > > > > > fucking > > > > > > > > > > thing about religion other than that this country will NOT > > > > > > > > > > have an > > > > > > > > > > official one. Yep, I checked, right there in the First > > > > > > > > > > Ammendment. > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 4:02 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > One of those "diplays" is of the U.S. Constitution... > > > > > > > > > > > > As many others just quote from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which isn't "U.S. Policy", it should be the Fucking Law > > > > > > > > > > > of the Land. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 1:59 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramakazee, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explain how my comparison of private opinions differ > > > > > > > > > > > > from public > > > > > > > > > > > > opinions expressed in the capacity as a national office > > > > > > > > > > > > holder is > > > > > > > > > > > > nonsensical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never been to D.C. Seen pictures, documantaries and > > > > > > > > > > > > movies of tourists > > > > > > > > > > > > standing in front of them getting their pictures taken. > > > > > > > > > > > > Symbolism for > > > > > > > > > > > > the masses, not official statements of U.S policy lad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't run away, try harder. Your rolling over and > > > > > > > > > > > > giving up like the > > > > > > > > > > > > Ram's defensive line. LMAO! > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 3:44 pm, Kamakazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's only difficult because you argue a nonsensical > > > > > > > > > > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you been to DC? "tourist attractions"???. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you're referring to the Smithsonian's exhibit > > > > > > > > > > > > > on Uranus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 3:39 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramakazee, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure you can, primarily in their PERSONAL LETTERS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to friends and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associates. And i can find as many from other FF's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that do not support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > religion, all depends on WHICH FF I dig up and at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WHAT point in his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monuments? Tourists attractions lad. NOT official > > > > > > > > > > > > > > documents stating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > federal Govt. policy. You understand that a Treaty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has to be ratified > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by Congress, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is is beyond you to understand that a man might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a personal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion that is quite different from an opinion he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might hold as a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public official when his/her decisions might very > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well impact on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entire country? Is this too difficult for you to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 2:16 pm, Kamakazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For every "Treaty of Tripoli" snippet you dig up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and I suspect there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aren't many) I can pull up 10 snippets directly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > related to the faith/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > belief/religions the found fathers expressed in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other writings. And > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > produce 10 pictures of monuments in DC referring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to each. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS. Of course the Establishment Clause is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended to prevent the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > establishment, by the govt, of any state > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sponsored religion. And of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course one is free to chose no religion, but it's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not specifically > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stated in the USC, that was my point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 1:39 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramakazee, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please tell me you're not this dense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The constituion specifically forbids the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > establishment of ANY state > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > religion. Look it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if there IS no officially sanctioned > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > religion that means you can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never be "punished" for > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
