TweetHere something to twist the mind.

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.

Since the preface is Religion, do all these freedoms only apply to Religion, because in all reality we don't have cart blanch to freedom of speech. Walk up to someone and tell them your going to kill them or say your going to kill the President in a public forum. There can be consequence to what we say if it's inappropriate.

But here's what I want to know has Congress made a law that prohibit Religious expression in any public area? If it has they are in violation of the first amendment and if they haven't what the beef with people expressing their Religion in any area including a government establishment?

JohnnyB

Tweet

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Here's an example, if you work for the government you go to work with an eagles jersey on, does that mean the government is backing the eagles?

No, it's your personal backing, but somehow when it comes to religion the rational changes, why?

Lets look at the first amendment again.

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.

I got this from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html

By a person expressing thier religion in a government building, how is that congress making a law that shows repect to that religion?

Here's what happens the talking heads start saying "seperation of Church and state" it in the consitution. Do people check it out, no, they believe what they here. Once people are convinced, then comes the new spin, every government building can not have religious articles of any kind, including personal or there'll be breaking the law. Then every one get scared and don't want to take a chance that they could be breaking a law that doesn't exsist, when in reality they are breaking one on that does exsist.

Here's the best part, the same people that are so against religion are the same ones fight for a muslim women to be able to wear her vial covering her face for a photo ID. The whole montra of "seperation of Church and state" is aimed at one relgion only, the one with Churchs. When the first amendment says "religion", that's why you can go to a government building and see a women wearing her hear dress with no problem or a man wearing a relgious head dress.

We need to look out, who know what group they are going after next and you may be part of that group. Once you let them twice one part, they'll go after another. What did ****** say, "say a lie enough and people will believe it's true." Congress has made no law with respect to any religion and if they make one not allowing the freedon of expression of any religion, they have taken away the right of the people.

How this simple right got so twisted, is beyond me.

JohnnyB

Roark I'm really supriased you didn't have something to say about any of this or was your comment on "oppressed Christian your take on this?

JohnnyB

Tweet

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Roark I'm really supriased you didn't have something to say about any of this or was your comment on "oppressed Christian your take on this?

JohnnyB

My comment wasnt directed at that, i hadnt read that post when i wrote it. Now it is.

Like I said, the establishment clause ONLY prevents government sponsored religion.

If you work for the government you can wear a jewish star, a cross, a muslim headdress....whatever you want. What you can't have is the government requiring any of this or preventing one, but not another.

TweetHere's how scared they have everyone with that twisted mantra, people at a place of business will not say Merry Christmas, because it has Christ in it. The season and that day people get off is CHRISTmas, so why is it not right to say it. Because it's not PC, if you do say it the thought police are on you. What happened to America, the whole idea during the Hippie movement was to go against the establishment, to be free thinkers not having to think in the box or having your thoughts governed by a group of people.

Now the PC movement is so deep in peoples mind they can't think for themselves. The truth is, they only wanted you to free your mind from traditional thinking and come under a socialist mind set. Once that happens they can control your mind and govern your thoughts on what's right and wrong. They can twist the interpretation of words because they have your mind. I mean hey all ( most all)the Professors are teaching it that way, so it must be right and I heard it said that way on TV so it has to be true.

They chipped away at the core values of America, got people to believe those were bad, once that happened they had an open door to indoctrinate people.

The old saying is true, "If you don't believe in something, you'll believe anything"

I see this is a good topic for discussion, glad for everyones participation

Thanks
JohnnyB

Tweet

Originally Posted by roark

My comment wasnt directed at that, i hadnt read that post when i wrote it. Now it is.

Like I said, the establishment clause ONLY prevents government sponsored religion.

If you work for the government you can wear a jewish star, a cross, a muslim headdress....whatever you want. What you can't have is the government requiring any of this or preventing one, but not another.

We agree, some times when your typing and not actually talking to the person it take longer to see that your thoughts are the same on some issues.

There are lots of people out there that think people can't do this, if it's in a government building.

Can you give me a website to reard some of Scaleas(sp) ideas and ruling?

JohnnyB

Tweet

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

No one said opressed unless I missed it.

yeah and the constitution doesn't say "seperation of chruch and state" either but it is implied.

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

WOW I see your lack of interpetation skills are not limited to the Bible

JohnnyB

Let me help remind you!

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

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.

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.

-freaking Christians!

Tweet

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

You are probably right, I believe they just have you say so help me God, but it used for inauguration of the President.

"So help me God" is not part of the oath of office, but every President ellect has added "So help me God" at the end of the oath. This is a perfect example of how a religious test can not be a requirement for office but the individual is free to express a religious sentiment on their own behalf (or as tradition, long as it is not compulsory). I'm pretty sure if you get sworn in in a court all you have to do is affirm that you understand you are under oath with a pentality for perjury.

Tweet

Originally Posted by stiles

I'm pretty sure if you get sworn in in a court all you have to do is affirm that you understand you are under oath with a pentality for perjury.

yup

Tweet

Originally Posted by stiles

"So help me God" is not part of the oath of office, but every President ellect has added "So help me God" at the end of the oath. This is a perfect example of how a religious test can not be a requirement for office but the individual is free to express a religious sentiment on their own behalf (or as tradition, long as it is not compulsory). I'm pretty sure if you get sworn in in a court all you have to do is affirm that you understand you are under oath with a pentality for perjury.

It's been a long time since I've been in court, so I'll admit I was wrong on that point.

Since I'm getting old maybe you guys can help my here, so far, as I can remember when they are sworn in they put their hand on a Bible, the President elect. But we're getting away from the 1st amendment.

I'm really surprised no one commented on, Religion being the preface of the 1st amendment, so does that mean it only applied to Religion?

Because we don't have cart blanch to free speech, if you don't believe me go the the airport, yell out "I have a bomb" and see how free your speech is then.

JohnnyB

Tweet

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Because we don't have cart blanch to free speech, if you don't believe me go the the airport, yell out "I have a bomb" and see how free your speech is then.

that would no longer be considered free speech but a threat of force, infringing others freedom.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Klash

that would no longer be considered free speech but a threat of force, infringing others freedom.

You can't yell "Hi Jack" to your friend Jack in an airport anymore and you can't yell Fire in a crowded movie theatre. Neither one is a threat of force. Some people would even call it a practical joke.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Klash

Christians claim the government ownes a womans reproductive system in the name of protecting life.

Even though I disagree with your beliefs, your arguments are usually intelligent, but this statement is out there.
Christians do not claim the government ownes a womans reproductive system.
They simply have a fundemental disagreement on when life begins and they want the government to protect that life that can't speak for itself.

Tweet

Originally Posted by roark

The only prohibition is against government sponsored religion. The government is not interefering with anybody's ability to worship the god of their choice.

Yea, you're wrong their. If you want to practice your religion at school you will be told "no". Most schools, which are government funded, deny students the ability to practice their religion.

Here's my stand on this:

I'm a Christian, but in no way do I feel it's fair to allow me or anyone else the right to practice one religion over another. Yes, I think mine is right and I think mine is the only authenitic one. But I would never deny any Muslim, Hindu, Jew or anyone else from their constitutional right to practice their religion. On the same hand, I don't feel it's right to force your religion on anyone else. Sure, I minister to lost people all the time, but don't I force it on them. (This is where the Crusades made a bad name for Christians) My religion teaches to spread the word, not force it down peoples throats. If you know Christian scripture it's very clear, no where does God say to "impose" your beliefs on anyone. He says to "tell" the world about my word. That's it. Those who decide to believe will come to you and then you start the mentoring process. Those who don't believe make the decision to do so.

I've seen a lot of Christians push more people away because of their beliefs than pull people to them. Some of them have this car salesman (no offense) approach where they feel they need to "close the deal". Others have this "high and mighty" approach where they feel the need to point out all your wrong doings. I'm not that way because the Bible doesn't teach us to be that way. "Love your neighbor as you do yourself". That's what the Bible teaches.

A lot of my clients live completely different lives than I do but I don't judge them nor deny them my frendship for it. All of my clients know my religious position, but when it comes to our business relationship we are all business. When it comes to our personal lives we go different ways. It's not my job to hound everyone I know about God everyday. They already know story. It's up to them to believe or not believe. The thing about Christianity is a lot of Christians think they have to convience you to believe. That's not our job. If you know the story and you choose not to believe that's between you and God.

I'm glad Bush is a Christian. We need a man with morals leading the free world. But, I don't think he should put his religion over others. He uses his religion to guide him in making tough decisons. We all have to make choices in life. And the leader of the free world must answer for his decisions. I personally would rather have a guy who makes decisiosn based on his religious convictions than some guy who makes his decisions based on who pays the most money to his campaign. But, that's me.