Gordy327
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2022
- Messages
- 22,714
- Reaction score
- 18,774
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, They are not. And should not be.The two are inexorably linked.
No, They are not. And should not be.The two are inexorably linked.
If you believe that then the secularists and especially atheists will have to step up to fill the void first. Otherwise, people die in the gutter with only their lip service to comfort them.No, They are not. And should not be.
The Free Exercise clause would obviously prohibit banning religious belief.
The separation of church and state only applies to the actions of the government to make it a no-religion zone.
Religious belief outside of that is protected. I do not understand why this is so difficult for you to understand
That is incorrect.
Nothing is stopping anyone from organizing a charity. Religious institutions are free to do so independent of the government.If you believe that then the secularists and especially atheists will have to step up to fill the void first. Otherwise, people die in the gutter with only their lip service to comfort them.
If the Republicans stop trying to make laws that reflect their religious beliefs, stop trying to force religion into schools, and stop finding reasons to allow religious zealots/charlatans to discriminate against people based on THEIR BELIEFS, this will stop happening.Problem is secular Democrats are marching towards any Christian public religious.expression as forcing religious views on others.
Here is the text of the Establishment Clause.
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Where in the text is the specification for separation of church and state? Nowhere.
If your going to cite SCOTUS declarations creating the so-called wall of separation kindly provide the Constitutional text enabling the SCOTUS to amend the Constitution.
Therefore your position is that charitable organizations must be independent of the government because secularists and atheists are the living embodiment of Ebenezer Scrooge.Nothing is stopping anyone from organizing a charity. Religious institutions are free to do so independent of the government.
How droll.Therefore your position is that charitable organizations must be independent of the government because secularists and atheists are the living embodiment of Ebenezer Scrooge.
This means that the religious zealots cannot legislate by their religion. In doing so, they create a de facto state religion and violate the 1st Amendment.Indeed, and that is also not the point. What is in question is how extensive the free exercise clauses is, and what the establishment clause actually limits.
This is false. It doesn't bar religiosity in government it prevents the government from establishing a state religion, like The Church of England... or the Church of the United States.
Wrong, religious belief inside and outside is protected. The Free expression of religion is what it says on the tin. the only limitation is on the Government and that limitation is specifically the proscription from establishing a state religion. Again, just as it says on the tin.
I have posted statements many times that show the founding fathers intended this country to be secular.LOL. It is correct, and I have already offered you the statements from Jefferson that said exactly that.
This means that the religious zealots cannot legislate by their religion. In doing so, they create a de facto state religion and violate the 1st Amendment.
Keep your religion out of my government and it will all work out.
I have posted statements many times that show the founding fathers intended this country to be secular.
I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.
We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.
Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.
So, the true meaning of the Constitution is not what's written in the Constitution, it's in selected excepts of the authors writings. That would make the ratification process meaningless. Absurd.The definition of those ideas are in the writings of Jefferson and Madison who wrote the First Amendment. Don't try to play with literalist textural games with me.
The Bill of Rights was not ratified as part of the US Constitution.So, the true meaning of the Constitution is not what's written in the Constitution, it's in selected excepts of the authors writings. That would make the ratification process meaningless. Absurd.
Now who is playing games? You.
Thanks for providing another example of raging Leftist intolerance. It's exactly the thing the first amendment prohibits in government.If the Republicans stop trying to make laws that reflect their religious beliefs, stop trying to force religion into schools, and stop finding reasons to allow religious zealots/charlatans to discriminate against people based on THEIR BELIEFS, this will stop happening.
There you go again denying the plain writing of the Constitution. Keep your religion to yourself directly contradicts the fee exercise of religion guarantee.Your religion does not give you the right to deny marriage licenses to homosexuals, nor does it give you the right to not provide services that run contrary to your beliefs. Pharmacists have no right to refuse to fill prescriptions because their religious beliefs do not agree with the purpose of the medication.
Keep your religion to yourself. It's okay for you to have a religion, it's okay for you to believe, it is not okay for you to force it on others.
Kindly cite the text in the Constitution supporting the notion the Founders wanted a secular state. You have already been shown the guarantee of free exercise of religion.The United States is supposed to be a secular state. That is what the founders wanted.
The Bill of Rights was not ratified as part of the US Constitution.
As part of the US Constitution, you might want to read the Federalist papers. The constitutions is a series of ideas and rules for how the government is to be organized because if it were verbatim it would be 20x longer and not open to juridical ruling to allow it to change with time as the country and society matured and expanded.
I agree with what you are saying, but public schools do not display crosses. They are not allowed to.I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.
We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.
Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.
I was a little kid when they added under God, and it was to separate us from communismActually, referencing a Judaeo-Christian-Muslim God is establishing a religion if you are requiring everyone to participate. Such as the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. By making that a government mandate they have established a government religion. The phrase "In God We Trust," however, is not establishing a government religion since it is not mandated by government that everyone must recite that phrase. The phrase "In God We Trust" should not exist in the first place, but it is better than the mandated "under God" in the Pledge which is blatantly unconstitutional.
It's not intolerance. Your religion does not give you the right to discriminate. You are still free to exercise your beliefs. You will not force them on others.Thanks for providing another example of raging Leftist intolerance. It's exactly the thing the first amendment prohibits in government.
No, it doesn't. Nobody is saying you cannot believe what you want. We are saying your religion shouldn't be forced on others and has no business in government.There you go again denying the plain writing of the Constitution. Keep your religion to yourself directly contradicts the fee exercise of religion guarantee.
Kindly cite the text in the Constitution supporting the notion the Founders wanted a secular state. You have already been shown the guarantee of free exercise of religion.
Wrong.No it doesn't. It means that the religious zealots can't establish a United States Church of Religious Zealotry.
Religion has no place in government. Your religion is not the law.The will of the people and the legislators isn't so limited on a policy by policy basis except insofar as the legislation infringes on the free expression of others.
I am not an atheist. I position is that the right cannot legislate by their religious beliefs. There can be no state religion and there cannot be a de facto state religion caused by Christian zealotry.Nope. Keep your militant atheism out of my government. Your position is the actual state limitation on the free expression of religion.
They intended the country to be freely religious and absent a state run religion. That is not what you and the anti-religion zealots propose. What you propose would be anathema to the founders.
They didn't do a very good job then. Mandating a loyalty pledge and deliberately violating the rights of its citizens sounds exactly like something communists would do.I was a little kid when they added under God, and it was to separate us from communism
You are half right. The Bill of Rights exist as a prohibition to government, not to individuals. The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion. However, the First Amendment does not prohibit the religious from entering government. There have been Catholic Priests, and numerous Reverends, Ministers, and other clergy from protestant religions, as well as a few Rabbis who have served in Congress.Wrong.
There can be no state religion. That means religion cannot forced on people through rule of law.
Religion has no place in government. Your religion is not the law.
I am not an atheist. I position is that the right cannot legislate by their religious beliefs. There can be no state religion and there cannot be a de facto state religion caused by Christian zealotry.
What the right is doing is creating a de facto state religion. I suggest you go look up the definition of the word "zealot".
What I am proposing is exactly what the founders wanted. People to be able to live freely WITHOUT a state religion and without a de facto state religion being forced on people because the right is unable to understand their religion is not the law.
You are half right. The Bill of Rights exist as a prohibition to government, not to individuals. The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion. However, the First Amendment does not prohibit the religious from entering government. There have been Catholic Priests, and numerous Reverends, Ministers, and other clergy from protestant religions, as well as a few Rabbis who have served in Congress.
The First Amendment prohibitions are very much one sided. Government is prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion, but the religious are not prohibited from interfering with the government.
That is incorrect. Separation works both ways. Otherwise, there is no Separation between governments and religion.You are half right. The Bill of Rights exist as a prohibition to government, not to individuals. The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion. However, the First Amendment does not prohibit the religious from entering government. There have been Catholic Priests, and numerous Reverends, Ministers, and other clergy from protestant religions, as well as a few Rabbis who have served in Congress.
The First Amendment prohibitions are very much one sided. Government is prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion, but the religious are not prohibited from interfering with the government.
Citing the establishment clause of the 1st amendment while ignoring the guarantees of free exercise and free speech isn't accurate. It leads to false claims of Christianity being a de facto state religion. The insistence on purging Christianity from government not only establishes atheism as the State religion it directly violates the Article 6 prohibition of a religious test for office.Many people say this, but it isn't entirely accurate.
There can be no state religion this in the 1st Amendment. May red states have taken Christianity and made it a de facto state religion. This is not acceptable.
I am not saying religious people cannot be in the law, what I am saying is that their religion is NOT the law and cannot be the law.
What is happening in Florida, Texas, South Dakota, and a few others is that their leadership has turned those states into de facto Christian theocracies. This is a 1st Amendment violation and needs to be reversed.
Removing or restricting religion from the government, as it should be, is not establishing atheism. It's maintaining a secular government. As it should be.Citing the establishment clause of the 1st amendment while ignoring the guarantees of free exercise and free speech isn't accurate. It leads to false claims of Christianity being a de facto state religion. The insistence on purging Christianity from government not only establishes atheism as the State religion it directly violates the Article 6 prohibition of a religious test for office.
I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.
We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.
Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.