• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

misterman said:
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."
Click to expand...

Wow man...I mean...holy ****, really.

The first amendment does not prevent you from respecting an establishment of religion. You are free to respect or disrespect whatever you like.

The first amendment regards laws, not personal opinions. You might do well to at least read your own links.
 
other said:
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,
Click to expand...

To endorse is to establish.

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.
Click to expand...

The only reason you don't see the obvious is because you're used to it.

Suppose you walked into a town hall and saw a giant "Allahu Akhbar" sign on the front. Or crucifixes and Bible verses on every wall. You wouldn't suspect that the government might favor one religion over another? You wouldn't think you might face pressure to conform to one religion in order to get better treatment? You don't see religious symbols all over the place as evidence that the government just might be sending you a message? Especially if you ask to put up symbols for your own religion but are denied?

The First Amendment doesn't just say "establish religion" it says "respecting an establishment of religion." It can't do anything that looks like or comes close to establishing a religion. This goes far beyond simply declaring an official religion. It means the government can't go around advancing or endorsing a particular religion, even if it doesn't come out and say it's "official."
 
misterman said:
To endorse is to establish.



The only reason you don't see the obvious is because you're used to it.

Suppose you walked into a town hall and saw a giant "Allahu Akhbar" sign on the front. Or crucifixes and Bible verses on every wall. You wouldn't suspect that the government might favor one religion over another? You wouldn't think you might face pressure to conform to one religion in order to get better treatment? You don't see religious symbols all over the place as evidence that the government just might be sending you a message? Especially if you ask to put up symbols for your own religion but are denied?

The First Amendment doesn't just say "establish religion" it says "respecting an establishment of religion." It can't do anything that looks like or comes close to establishing a religion. This goes far beyond simply declaring an official religion. It means the government can't go around advancing or endorsing a particular religion, even if it doesn't come out and say it's "official."
Click to expand...

For the sake of argument here, what if you are NOT denied when you ask if you can put up symbols for your own religion? And are you implying that the government can stop individual entities (people, companies, or corporations) from putting up religous symbols on their own property? Because where I live there is very little government land and a whole lot of private land.
 
Jerry said:
Wow man...I mean...holy ****, really.

The first amendment does not prevent you from respecting an establishment of religion. You are free to respect or disrespect whatever you like.

The first amendment regards laws, not personal opinions. You might do well to at least read your own links.
Click to expand...

:lol: This is beyond hilarious. You actually think "respecting" is about personal opinions or something. God, the whacky stuff people come up with when they have no idea what they are talking about.

From the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It means "with respect to" as in referring or relating to. Not respecting as in respect vs. disrespect.

You might do well to go read something, anything, about this before you spew your opinions.
 
carlkay58 said:
For the sake of argument here, what if you are NOT denied when you ask if you can put up symbols for your own religion?
Click to expand...

That would be entirely different. If anyone can put up their religious symbols, it's just a wall for people to put up stuff. The government isn't choosing sides. It's fine with me.

And are you implying that the government can stop individual entities (people, companies, or corporations) from putting up religous symbols on their own property?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, positively NOT. That is just as protected by the First Amendment. Private citizens are protected from the government "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religion.

Because where I live there is very little government land and a whole lot of private land.
Click to expand...

And I urge people who seem to have this desire to put up their own little religious displays on public property to just go put them up on their own property. There are plenty of homes and churches and private land for that. Why the need to put them up on public property - if not to get the tacit endorsement from the goverment?
 
misterman said:
To endorse is to establish..
Click to expand...

just semantics. The actual wording is "establishment," which has a clearer connotation than "endorse."

misterman said:
Suppose you walked into a town hall and saw a giant "Allahu Akhbar" sign on the front. Or crucifixes and Bible verses on every wall. You wouldn't suspect that the government might favor one religion over another? You wouldn't think you might face pressure to conform to one religion in order to get better treatment? You don't see religious symbols all over the place as evidence that the government just might be sending you a message? Especially if you ask to put up symbols for your own religion but are denied?
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't consider the public display of religious symbols as the "establishment" of a state religion, as I am in no way compelled by force to follow that religion. Once that line is crossed, when they fine me for not attending synogue or something, then there is a problem.


misterman said:
The First Amendment doesn't just say "establish religion" it says "respecting an establishment of religion." It can't do anything that looks like or comes close to establishing a religion. This goes far beyond simply declaring an official religion. It means the government can't go around advancing or endorsing a particular religion, even if it doesn't come out and say it's "official."
Click to expand...

"establishment" is the key word. Allowing symbols to be displayed is not the same as forcing someone to kneel before said symbol against their will.
 
Last edited:
other said:
just semantics. The actual wording is "establishment," which has a clearer connotation than "endorse."
Click to expand...

The actual wording is "respecting an establishment of religion".

As I said, I don't consider the public display of religious symbols as the "establishment" of a state religion, as I am in no way compelled by force to follow that religion. Once that line is crossed, when they fine me for not attending synogue or something, then there is a problem.
Click to expand...

But the actual wording is "respecting an establishment of religion."

Just a side note, whether or not it has legal bearing - doesn't it bother you that the government chooses to put up a display, possibly even using your money, to make a statement that appears to endorse one religion over others? Even if you aren't forced to practice it, doesn't it bother you? Especially if it isn't your religion?

You're using the wrong version of the word "respect." They didn't mean respect as in to show deference, but respect as in "concerning," ie. "Obama knows very little with respect to free market capitalism"
Click to expand...

No, that's how I'm using it too. It means "related to" - in other words, it doesn't have to be an explicit law establishing an official religion.
 
other said:
"establishment" is the key word. Allowing symbols to be displayed is not the same as forcing someone to kneel before said symbol against their will.
Click to expand...

No, "respecting an establishment" is the key phrase.
 
misterman said:
Wrong again.

Christmas is a federal holiday because 95% of the workforce would take it off with vacation time anyway, so there's no point in keeping the office open.
Click to expand...

HURR DURR, it was sarcasm CLEARLY marked this time with a :lol: for people like YOU. Please put the keyboard down, sir, and step away from the computer.
 
misterman said:
:lol: This is beyond hilarious. You actually think "respecting" is about personal opinions or something. God, the whacky stuff people come up with when they have no idea what they are talking about.

From the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It means "with respect to" as in referring or relating to. Not respecting as in respect vs. disrespect.

You might do well to go read something, anything, about this before you spew your opinions.
Click to expand...

JUST STOP ALREADY! PUT THE SHOVEL DOWN! You're digging a hole the likes of which you cannot get out of without major ass kissing or backpedaling.
 
misterman said:
The actual wording is "respecting an establishment of religion".



But the actual wording is "respecting an establishment of religion."
Click to expand...

This doesn't change the meaning. Replacing "respecting" with "related to":

shall make no law relating to the establishment of ...

This means the same as "shall make no law establishing...."

respecting the establishment of = establishing.

No law of establishment, however nuanced is allowed

misterman said:
Just a side note, whether or not it has legal bearing - doesn't it bother you that the government chooses to put up a display, possibly even using your money, to make a statement that appears to endorse one religion over others? Even if you aren't forced to practice it, doesn't it bother you? Especially if it isn't your religion?
Click to expand...

Yes, but not because it is prohibited by the constitution. I would work hard to vote out any representative or official that put up symbols I disagree with.

I would take my guns to the mountains if they were forcing me to worship zoroaster.

That's a big difference
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
JUST STOP ALREADY! PUT THE SHOVEL DOWN! You're digging a hole the likes of which you cannot get out of without major ass kissing or backpedaling.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. See you in court.

So if everyone has stopped flailing around with that "Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states" crap, can I go to bed now?
 
misterman said:
Okay, this time SLOOOWLY.

Public land is bought and maintained by a government making laws. To acquire the land, a law was passed. To create the government agencies that manage it and make policies for it, a law was passed.
Click to expand...

Fine, and there is nothing barring display of religious symbols on that public land. So what the hell are you even arguing.

misterman said:
Right. Now, skipping over the other worthless crap...
Click to expand...

No, there was point. I showed it. You just don't understand.

misterman said:
Yes. And you just admitted that the 14th amendment makes the 1st amendment apply to the states. So we're done here.
Click to expand...

What are we done with? You being stupid. Please please please say that's so. Yes, State Congress can make no law abridging freedom of religion. But nothing bars a community or State from erecting religious symbols on public property. Nothing is all that. So just what the hell are you even talking about?

misterman said:
No, actually, I've already explained to you both my points here - the doctrine of incorporation and the fact that management of public land is "making law" in the sense of the First Amendment. You just aren't listening.
Click to expand...

You've explained ****. You're not listening. NO WHERE did you explain how the 1st or the 14th bars the erection of religious symbols on public land. Till that point, we're done. I have a low tolerance for stupid, and I'm not going to entertain pointless, worthless arguments.
 
other said:
This doesn't change the meaning. Replacing "respecting" with "related to":

shall make no law relating to the establishment of ...

This means the same as "shall make no law establishing...."

respecting the establishment of = establishing.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't the same thing, otherwise they would have just written "establishing."

Yes, but not because it is prohibited by the constitution. I would work hard to vote out any representative or official that put up symbols I disagree with.
Click to expand...

Okay. But say 95% of the town was of a different religion than you, and every building and open lot owned by the government was covered with religious displays from that religion. Just how far do they have to go before it crosses the line?

I would take my guns to the mountains if they were forcing me to worship zoroaster.
Click to expand...

Just take your case to court (without your gun, they have metal detectors).

Thanks for being a reasonable, sane, informed person on this thread btw.
 
The silenced majority said:
Thanks misterman for making me root for Ikari on a debate about religion & public life.

It's something I rarely get to do.
Click to expand...

I'm usually in agreement with everyone about something. Vague? Yes. But I like to think there is an issue or two with each person that I can at least see eye to eye on.
 
misterman said:
Okay. But say 95% of the town was of a different religion than you, and every building and open lot owned by the government was covered with religious displays from that religion. Just how far do they have to go before it crosses the line?
Click to expand...

When they pass a law forcing me to recognize their god.
 
Ikari said:
Fine, and there is nothing barring display of religious symbols on that public land. So what the hell are you even arguing.
Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake. I explained it.

(more crap dropped)

Yes, State Congress can make no law abridging freedom of religion. But nothing bars a community or State from erecting religious symbols on public property.
Click to expand...

Okay, I've explained this twice. One more time.

To erect religious symbols on public property may violate the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause in the First Amendment for two reasons that you may not be grasping:

1. Putting a bunch of religious symbols on public property can appear that the government is endorsing religion, which violates the establishment clause.

2. Public property is owned by the government, and it requires laws to be passed to create and maintain it.

So instead of throwing more crap at me, tell me what you either disagree with or don't understand in the above so I can clarify, okay?

You've explained ****. You're not listening. NO WHERE did you explain how the 1st or the 14th bars the erection of religious symbols on public land. Till that point, we're done. I have a low tolerance for stupid, and I'm not going to entertain pointless, worthless arguments.
Click to expand...

Take a deep breath, maybe drink a beer, calm yourself down, and read post 197.
 
misterman said:
Yeah, right. See you in court.

So if everyone has stopped flailing around with that "Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states" crap, can I go to bed now?
Click to expand...

I don't know what crap that's referring to, but I was referring to the part where you tried to compare putting up decorations to being a "law respecting a religion" or whatnot.
 
Ikari said:
When they pass a law forcing me to recognize their god.
Click to expand...

So you'll put up with everything just short of that, huh?

How about a gigantic golden mosque built with taxpayer funds in the middle of the town square, with a big sign saying "Public Town Mosque, Allah is Great"? And a law requiring women to wear burkas? Nothing in there about forcing to recognize any god.

(But "recognize their god" is awful close to "respecting and establishment of religion." Interesting choice of words, when you could has simply said "worship.")
 
misterman said:
So you'll put up with everything just short of that, huh?
Click to expand...

Yes because he isn't a bickering child who let's every small little thing rub him the wrong way.

misterman said:
How about a gigantic golden mosque built with taxpayer funds in the middle of the town square, with a big sign saying "Public Town Mosque, Allah is Great"? And a law requiring women to wear burkas? Nothing in there about forcing to recognize any god.
Click to expand...

Riiiight, cause that's the same as a plastic nativity from Wal-Mart bought with an employees money not the organization's money...

misterman said:
(But "recognize their god" is awful close to "respecting and establishment of religion." Interesting choice of words, when you could has simply said "worship.")
Click to expand...

You can recognize and respect all you want so long as there is no LAW doing so. Decorations do not equal a law nor do they equal the final opinion or actions of the Federal Government.
 
you guys need to understand that america needs God in its life we can say seperation of church and state all we want but we can seperate God from our selfs

I am acidrain! and i approve of this message
 
EpicDude86 said:
Here's hoping this guy isn't a troll. :lol: Might actually be funny!
Click to expand...

I've learned never to assume that someone is so preposterous that they must be joking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom