Instant Access Registration Takes Less Than 15 Seconds! You May Not Post Until Registered.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having trouble staying logged in when navigating between forums/topics/etc., you need to reset your session cookie. Go into your browser and delete any cookie for the site them log back in. This should fix the login issue.
Yes there needs to be a seperation so the bible thumpers dont go off on a tangent forcing THEIR beliefs on everyone else. Their religion is their beliefs there should be NO reason on why I should have to abide by someone elses beliefs. That there would be unconstitutional.
The Constitution is someone elses belief, but you want to use it as a shield from Christian. Here's the problem, the people that made up the lie that it's in the Constitution over tax you and push socialist values on us. If they're lying about what's in the Constitution what else are they lying about?
It's in there. It's not a matter of whether you believe it's in there or not; it's there.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
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.
That says nothing about separation of Church and State, it does that the State can't start a religion. The idea of separation of Church and State is braking this first Amendment, it goes out to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Here's the one that gets me saying these people do think about what they're saying. A teacher in Cali had to have all of his school work preapproved by the principle because she knew he was a Christian. He was going to study the "Declaration of Independence, The Colonialist letters and the Contitution". She said they were religious documents and he couldn't use them, wow I'd be willing to bet she believes that the writer of these documents didn't want religion in government (seperation of Church and State).
Let's think about this, men with a belief in God wrote up a document that would prohibit them or people with the same beliefs to run the government or be involved in it. This is the type of think that is in our world today.
That says nothing about separation of Church and State, it does that the State can't start a religion. The idea of separation of Church and State is braking this first Amendment, it goes out to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Here's the one that gets me saying these people do think about what they're saying. A teacher in Cali had to have all of his school work preapproved by the principle because she knew he was a Christian. He was going to study the "Declaration of Independence, The Colonialist letters and the Contitution". She said they were religious documents and he couldn't use them, wow I'd be willing to bet she believes that the writer of these documents didn't want religion in government (seperation of Church and State).
Let's think about this, men with a belief in God wrote up a document that would prohibit them or people with the same beliefs to run the government or be involved in it. This is the type of think that is in our world today.
JohnnyB
The concept of separation of church and state does not conflict with the first amendment. Time and time again the supreme court has held that our first amendment rights are not absolute. Moreover, a separation between church and state in no way interferes with anyones first amendment rights, everyone is free to pray when and where they want, it just cant be government sponsored.
While it does not mention the words "separation of church and state" it is clear that that was the intention behind the words in that particular amendment. Also, if you read the writings of most of the founding fathers, you will see that a separation between relgion and government was contemplated while drafting the constitution and the bill of rights.
johny b, i respect your opinions and your obviously well edjucated, and convicted to your beliefs. being catholic and attending catholic school as a kid, i am not offended by the ten commandments, or anything else in public places that refer to jesus, god, chritian religion or crosses. but, it is only becouse i have grown with religion around me. at the same time, i would find it very unconfertable to walk into my local court house for a traffic violation, to find referances of muhamed everywhere. there needs to be seperation of church and state for many resons, but peace is a big one. we should not shove our beliefs down others throat, just as i would not have anybody's shoved down mine. i dont believe to hold a political post in our country you need to be of a certain religion becouse our f/fathers were. i do believe that the right politician (not too many to draw comparessons from) would be able to seperate thier religious beliefs when it comes to decission making time. hence seperating themselves (state) from their personal beliefs(religion) for the good of the many.
HE WHO MAKES A BEAST OF HIMSELF, GET'S RID OF THE PAIN OF BEING A MAN!!
not in those words, "seperation of chruch and state".
I'll second Roark
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" meaning government cannot endorse any religion, even if you think yours is right.
No one is asking for there endorsement, only for the freedon of expression.
That's where this whole thing has gone wrong, it was written saying that the state wouldn't endorse or stop the expression of a religion.
Here's what Jefferson said, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state".
The government is deffinitly making laws that prohibit the freedom of expression, when it comes to religion. The wall is for the protection of religious freedom and to stop the state from making laws that do away with that freedom, not to do away with it's expression.
Here 's the letter Jefferson where he used seperation between Church and the Stateand the letter that was written to him and the basis for his letter. http://fact.trib.com/1st.jeffers.2.html
No one is asking for there endorsement, only for the freedon of expression.
That's where this whole thing has gone wrong, it was written saying that the state wouldn't endorse or stop the expression of a religion.
Here's what Jefferson said, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state".
The government is deffinitly making laws that prohibit the freedom of expression, when it comes to religion. The wall is for the protection of religious freedom and to stop the state from making laws that do away with that freedom, not to do away with it's expression.
Here 's the letter Jefferson where he used seperation between Church and the Stateand the letter that was written to him and the basis for his letter. http://fact.trib.com/1st.jeffers.2.html
JohnnyB
The only prohibition is against government sponsored religion. The government is not interefering with anybody's ability to worship the god of their choice.
if you read the writings of most of the founding fathers, you will see that a separation between relgion and government was contemplated while drafting the constitution and the bill of rights.
You're are right, let consider there back round. They came from a country that had an establish religion, if you weren't part of the Church of England you were died or in prison. This is the basis of their writings to prohibit this same thing from happening again. So that they could freely express their beliefs, where ever that might be.
If I work for the government and I want to put up the 10 commandments for instance, this law say I can because I would be freely expressing my religion. The problem starts when the government begans regulating that freedom of expression. By me putting up whatever religious symbol or writing, it by no means should be interpreted as the state establishing a religion or backing one. It just my freedom of expression guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
By me putting up whatever religious symbol or writing, it by no means should be interpreted as the state establishing a religion or backing one. It just my freedom of expression guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
JohnnyB
JohnnyB
If you work for the government and you put up the ten comandments in your cubicle, you're right, it shoudlnt be a problem. However, putting those same comandments at the steps of a courthouse is improper.
The government might prevent people from putting up their own personal religious items in government offices to avoid even looking as if they are sponsoring those items or that religion.
If you dont work in the government or for some government sponsored agency or the like, you are free to put up whatever you choose and dont have to worry about the establishment clause.
You're are right, let consider there back round. They came from a country that had an establish religion, if you weren't part of the Church of England you were died or in prison. This is the basis of their writings to prohibit this same thing from happening again. So that they could freely express their beliefs, where ever that might be.
If I work for the government and I want to put up the 10 commandments for instance, this law say I can because I would be freely expressing my religion. The problem starts when the government begans regulating that freedom of expression. By me putting up whatever religious symbol or writing, it by no means should be interpreted as the state establishing a religion or backing one. It just my freedom of expression guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
JohnnyB
JohnnyB
there is a time and place for it. what i don't understand is why people feel the need to express THEIR religion to everyone
i do believe that the right politician (not too many to draw comparessons from) would be able to seperate thier religious beliefs when it comes to decission making time. hence seperating themselves (state) from their personal beliefs(religion) for the good of the many.
Isn't that a hypocrite? How can anyone be separated from their beliefs it's what makes us who we are. Some how if they're religious you're supposed to separate yourself from them. If this is so true then why do all politician claim to be Christians when they're running but when they vote, they vote agianst what their said belief or values should be according to their profession.
Why would you want someone that says they're one thing to be elected, then lives in a manner that doesn't express said beliefs or values once elected?
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
as a roaring lion,walketh about,seeking whom he may devour:
Comment