Page 20 of 28 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 275

Thread: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,648

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Thanks misterman for making me root for Ikari on a debate about religion & public life.

    It's something I rarely get to do.

  2. #192
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by The silenced majority View Post
    Thanks misterman for making me root for Ikari on a debate about religion & public life.

    It's something I rarely get to do.
    Too bad he's completely wrong. It's something you probably get to be alot.

  3. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,648

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Too bad he's completely wrong. It's something you probably get to be alot.
    If the 14th amendment compels the 1st amendment to be applied to all of the states, then all that means is that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...in the individual sovereign states.

  4. #194
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by The silenced majority View Post
    If the 14th amendment compels the 1st amendment to be applied to all of the states, then all that means is that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...in the individual sovereign states.
    No, that's not what it means at all. It means the state governments are bound by the First Amendment too, just as if it said "Congress and the states shall make no law..."

    The reasoning is this: the purpose of the 14th amendment is to make sure the states give people the same rights they have as citizens of the U.S., otherwise, being a citizen of the U.S. is worthless. If a state can completely deny all your rights, you still have no rights. It's called incorporation, and though it is still contorversial, it is sound, accepted legal doctrine.

    Start here to educate yourself:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights)

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,648

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No, that's not what it means at all. It means the state governments are bound by the First Amendment too, just as if it said "Congress and the states shall make no law..."
    How do you get that it is illegal for there to be religious symbols on public land out of the writ of the 1st amendment?

  6. #196
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by The silenced majority View Post
    How do you get that it is illegal for there to be religious symbols on public land out of the writ of the 1st amendment?
    He's using Wiki as a valid resource for education...I think the problem is deeper than we can address online.

  7. #197
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by The silenced majority View Post
    How do you get that it is illegal for there to be religious symbols on public land out of the writ of the 1st amendment?
    Okay, first of all, I didn't say it's always illegal. It can be though.

    In a nutshell:

    1. The First Amendment says you can't "respect an establishment of religion."
    2. To me, that means the government can't endorse, or appear to endorse, a religion, or religion in general.
    3. That applies to the state governments too (14th amendment).
    4. Public land is the government - it is owned and controlled by the government.
    5. Therefore, IF the government puts up a religious display, or allows someone to put one up without allowing any other religious displays, its the same thing as the government declaring that there is an official religion, and that would be a violation of the First amendment.

    It's not like this isn't found all over the place in the caselaw though.

  8. #198
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    He's using Wiki as a valid resource for education...I think the problem is deeper than we can address online.
    Wiki has the simplest article for the beginner, that's why. Here, if you want a more authoritative source:

    Understanding Federal and State Courts - Educational Outreach
    (from www.uscourts.gov - the website for the federal court system)

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, shortly after the Civil War. It was created primarily to ensure that the rights of former slaves (freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865) would be protected throughout the nation. The need for the amendment was great, because up to this time the provisions of the Bill of Rights were not enforceable against state governments. This was due to the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1835). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were enforceable against only the federal government (and not against state governments) due to the federal structure of the nation. Therefore, without a constitutional amendment justifying federal intervention in the affairs of the states, states hostile to the interests of the newly freed slaves might still legally discriminate against or persecute them.

    While some of the amendment's supporters felt that the amendment would incorporate all of the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights to the states, this was not to be. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1875), the view of these supporters was rejected, and the U.S. Supreme Court held that the "privilege and immunities" clause did not automatically incorporate (apply) all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the state. Over time though, the Court began to use the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment to achieve the same end. The following is a list of all the provisions of the Bill of Rights that have thus far been incorporated by the U.S. Supreme Court to the states through the "due process" clause.
    Year and Amendment Constitutional Provision Incorporated Supreme Court Case
    1897 Fifth Just compensation clause Chicago, Burlington, Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
    1925 First Freedom of speech Gitlow v. New York
    1931 First Freedom of the press Near v. Minnesota
    1932 Sixth Right to counsel (in capital cases) Powell v. Alabama
    1937 First Freedom of assembly/petition DeJonge v. Oregon
    1940 First Free exercise clause Cantwell v. Connecticut
    1947 First Establishment clause Everson v. Board of Education
    1948 Sixth Right to a public trial In re Oliver
    1949 Fourth Protection against unreasonable search and seizures Wolf v. Colorado
    1962 Eighth Prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments Robinson v. California
    1963 Sixth Right to counsel (non-capital felonies) Gideon v. Wainwright
    1964 Fifth Right against self-incrimination Malloy v. Hogan
    1965 Sixth Right to confront adverse witnesses Pointer v. Texas
    1966 Sixth Right to an impartial jury Parker v. Gladden
    1967 Sixth Right to a speedy trial Klopfer v. North Carolina
    1967 Sixth Right to obtain favorable witnesses Washington v. Texas
    1968 Sixth Right to a trial by jury in non-petty criminal cases Duncan v. Louisiana
    1969 Fifth Prohibition of double jeopardy Benton v. Maryland
    1972 Sixth Right to counsel in imprisonable non-felony cases Argersinger v. Hamlin

    It is important to note, though, that not all provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the states. In fact, in some cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly refused to do so. For example, in Hurtado v. California (1884) the Court refused to incorporate the Fifth Amendment's grand jury requirement to the states.
    Seriously, guys, I'm right about this, and you'd be laughed out of a courtroom if you challenged it. You can delude yourselves all you want and not go look it up, but it's right there.
    Last edited by misterman; 12-07-09 at 09:44 PM.

  9. #199
    Professor
    other's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    VA
    Last Seen
    01-22-14 @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,473

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    2. To me, that means the government can't endorse, or appear to endorse, a religion, or religion in general.
    .
    And yet, it actually prohibits only the "establishment" of a religion by the government. There is nothing regarding whether or not the government may "endorse" a religion, on the contrary, it says that the government may not prohibit "the free exercise thereof."

    The issue is whether or not some judge believes a religious symbol set up on public property is really the govermnent establishing that the symbol is the establishment of a new government religion or not. My interpretation is that that's a stretch, but I'm no judge.
    Last edited by other; 12-07-09 at 09:51 PM.

  10. #200
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Wiki has the simplest article for the beginner, that's why. Here, if you want a more authoritative source:

    Understanding Federal and State Courts - Educational Outreach
    (from U.S. Courts | The Federal Judiciary - the website for the federal court system)



    Seriously, guys, I'm right about this, and you'd be laughed out of a courtroom if you challenged it. You can delude yourselves all you want and not go look it up, but it's right there.
    You haven't yet linked to a law preventing people from turning to God if they so choose.

    Until you do, you truly have no argument.

    No matter how much you want it to be true, being religious and acting accordingly is not illegal.

Page 20 of 28 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •