SCOTUS has decided many times in favor of an unclear standard... And as I said in an earlier post they are seeking a balance between two Constitutional Rights 1) religious expression in the Public Square vs. 2) "Establishment of a State Religion"...
>>> 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) If only Secularist would abide by the decisions... They don't... They file suits claiming the have Constitutional Rights "FROM Religion"... And SCOTUS continues to deny them that claim... On Nov 14, 4:03 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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, > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
