• 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

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

I see no qualitative distinction between the two. This is where we'll just have to fundamentally interpret it different. I personally would rather err on the side of limiting the federal government's power to intervene as there is no force involved.

As mentioned before, if force is involved, it is another matter.

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?

When they try to enact any law that forces me to worship (or prohibits me from doing so). Putting up symbols is a local matter, not a constitutional one IMO, for the reasons I already stated.

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.

Of course. I was just using hyperbole...

and thank you as well.
 
Here's hoping this guy isn't a troll. :lol: Might actually be funny!

I would like to express my deep hatred of people of the troll persuasion. I would also like to assert my high level of concurrence in the matter at present.
 
I would like to express my deep hatred of people of the troll persuasion. I would also like to assert my high level of concurrence in the matter at present.

i agree with this guy the only real trolls i see here is the likes of the other recent posters
i jest at people who lose arguments and call people trolls i like this guy hes very intellectual
 
I've learned never to assume that someone is so preposterous that they must be joking.

Oooh, was that a clever jab at my posts? You're forgetting there's a little substance behind me and my posts, and some of these other trolls (And mindless idiots) are just shells. ;)
 
Oh for God's sake. I explained it.

(more crap dropped)

YOU'VE EXPLAINED CRAP! That's it. NOTHING. It's a damned good thing you aren't in a position which requires the use of a human brain.

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?

Respecting an establishment of religion is NOT a clause to itself. It's part of a sentence. The sentence is:

"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. "

Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Read it. What does it say? Can you comprehend it? It's not "Government will respect an establishment of religion" It's not "Government will endorse an establishment of religion" It's not "Government shall no place religious symbols on public land". It's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That's the sentence. For the love of all that is holy, is there a problem with that.

It's the same with the people who take the 2nd amendment out of context to try to excuse gun control. You have to read the WHOLE thing. You can't read a part of a sentence and take it out of context. Congress does not have to respect religion, they can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Respecting isn't the definition from the Aretha Franklin song. The "respecting" means:

1. a particular, detail, or point (usually prec. by in): to differ in some respect.
2. relation or reference: inquiries with respect to a route.

Congress shall make no law in relation to the establishment of a religion. That's the 1st. That's it. Is it clear to you now?

Take a deep breath, maybe drink a beer, calm yourself down, and read post 197.

Dumbass argument built on misconception, misinterpretation, and by taking a sentence fragment out of context. That's it.
 
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.

Decorations do equal a law.

Everything the government does is authorized by law one way or the other. It's called the "rule of law."

The public land was bought with a law. The people managing it do so with authorization of a law. The money to buy the decorations were authorized with a law. Don't get hung up on that word "law."

You don't have to believe me. Go read the case law. Oops, there's that word again.
 
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.")

Requiring people to wear clothing is over the line. Simply erecting a symbol is ok. They cannot infringe upon my rights; life, liberty, and property. Other than that, it's fair game.
 
Oooh, was that a clever jab at my posts? You're forgetting there's a little substance behind me and my posts, and some of these other trolls (And mindless idiots) are just shells. ;)

Thank you indeed. That is truly one of the most singular statements I have seen in my many years.
 
Requiring people to wear clothing is over the line. Simply erecting a symbol is ok. They cannot infringe upon my rights; life, liberty, and property. Other than that, it's fair game.

i think the goverment should choose what clothes we wear to much freedom im getting irriatated with obama at the moment
 
I see no qualitative distinction between the two. This is where we'll just have to fundamentally interpret it different. I personally would rather err on the side of limiting the federal government's power to intervene as there is no force involved.

"Intervene"? In what? This is the government's actions we're talking about in the first place.

The federal issue is a non-issue. The First Amendment binds the states too.

As mentioned before, if force is involved, it is another matter.

When they try to enact any law that forces me to worship (or prohibits me from doing so). Putting up symbols is a local matter, not a constitutional one IMO, for the reasons I already stated.

By that standard, I could set up a complete theocracy, with Imams running the government and making the laws, and as long as you weren't "forced" to worship anything, it would be constitutional.

Of course. I was just using hyperbole...

and thank you as well.

Glad I found someone serious and intelligent to talk to here. Don't let the distractions get to you please, I'm trying not to (I usually fail in that regard though).
 
Decorations do equal a law.

An act of legislation is a law. Decorations are not.

Everything the government does is authorized by law one way or the other. It's called the "rule of law."

Everything the government does is supposed to be authorized by the People one way or the other.

The public land was bought with a law. The people managing it do so with authorization of a law. The money to buy the decorations were authorized with a law. Don't get hung up on that word "law."

Public land is bought and paid for by the People of that community. It's their property, they may do with it as they like. If they want a Christmas tree, they can have a Christmas tree. If they want a menorah, they can have a menorah. Their land, their rules, their choice.

You don't have to believe me. Go read the case law. Oops, there's that word again.

Nothing says government will not usurp powers not meant for it. In fact, that's the natural progression of government. The founders warned us well of that one.
 
Requiring people to wear clothing is over the line.

Why exactly?

You aren't being forced to worship any god. There's no official religion declared. By your own standards, passing a law requiring your wife and daughters to wear burkas should be perfectly constitutional.
 
Why exactly?

You aren't being forced to worship any god. There's no official religion declared. By your own standards, passing a law requiring your wife and daughters to wear burkas should be perfectly constitutional.

ya i agree we need more laws to decide the proper clothing for people to bad obama wont do it
 
Decorations do equal a law.

You have GOT to be ****ting me. Name one instance where the display of a cosmetic (keyword here is cosmetic) decoration would be the equivalent of a LAW passed by CONGRESS.

Everything the government does is authorized by law one way or the other. It's called the "rule of law."

Oh how silly of me to not see that this includes putting decorations on the lawn! :roll:

The public land was bought with a law. The people managing it do so with authorization of a law. The money to buy the decorations were authorized with a law. Don't get hung up on that word "law."

Show me the line in any budget for "Denominational Lawn Decorations" please. I can't find it anywhere...And better yet find the law/statute/regulation that would allow that. :lol:

You don't have to believe me. Go read the case law. Oops, there's that word again.

Well right, because your statements are false. :) No problem!
 
Ultimately the government is legalized crime. They take your money. If you don't pay you go to jail. Children must go to school and if they don't it is against the law. Children go to school to become educated which leads to them getting jobs and paying taxes. The government is a big sham.
 
Why exactly?

You aren't being forced to worship any god. There's no official religion declared. By your own standards, passing a law requiring your wife and daughters to wear burkas should be perfectly constitutional.

Life, liberty, property. My body is my property, my cloths are my property. I'll do with them as I like. And no, it's not perfectly constitutional as it's an infringement of my right. There is some level of authority the government has when it comes to dress in public which we have established through social contract (such as nudity laws). Beyond that, the government may not get involved. Just as it should not get involved over public displays of religious symbols.
 
Life, liberty, property. My body is my property, my cloths are my property. I'll do with them as I like. And no, it's not perfectly constitutional as it's an infringement of my right. There is some level of authority the government has when it comes to dress in public which we have established through social contract (such as nudity laws). Beyond that, the government may not get involved. Just as it should not get involved over public displays of religious symbols.

The right to govern clothes stops at regulating Indecent Exposure. :D amirite?
 
An act of legislation is a law. Decorations are not.

An act of legislation that gives people money to buy decorations and says they can buy decorations sure as hell is a law. Don't be thickheaded.

Public land is bought and paid for by the People of that community. It's their property, they may do with it as they like. If they want a Christmas tree, they can have a Christmas tree. If they want a menorah, they can have a menorah. Their land, their rules, their choice.

Bull.

The Constitution LIMITS the power of the government. No matter how many people want something, they can't violate the Constitution. They can't vote to violate the First Amendment. Or do you think they could, say, vote to ban the carrying of Bibles on sidewalks?

Nothing says government will not usurp powers not meant for it. In fact, that's the natural progression of government. The founders warned us well of that one.

Hey, we agree on something.
 
An act of legislation that gives people money to buy decorations and says they can buy decorations sure as hell is a law. Don't be thickheaded.

If the people of the community wish for it, they may do it. Their money, their land, their choice. I cannot have a say, the federal government cannot have a say, rightfully.

Bull.

The Constitution LIMITS the power of the government. No matter how many people want something, they can't violate the Constitution. They can't vote to violate the First Amendment. Or do you think they could, say, vote to ban the carrying of Bibles on sidewalks?

Display of religious symbols on private land does not violate the Constitution. So it's ok.
 
Life, liberty, property. My body is my property, my cloths are my property. I'll do with them as I like.

Nothing in the Constitution about that though. Read it.

And no, it's not perfectly constitutional as it's an infringement of my right. There is some level of authority the government has when it comes to dress in public which we have established through social contract (such as nudity laws). Beyond that, the government may not get involved.

Where does it say that anywhere in the Constitution? Now you have to go find it. Have fun.

But you get my point about burkas anyway. You won't admit it, but you do.
 
An act of legislation that gives people money to buy decorations and says they can buy decorations sure as hell is a law. Don't be thickheaded.

I would define thickheaded as someone who read the posts (well I hope you did) in which we discussed the decorations not being bought ON BUDGET and then still trying to ram that point home...
 
Last edited:
obama is irritating me do you people not agree obama is not spending enough on programs to build more bridges and roads taxes are far to low in this country at the moment
 
If the people of the community wish for it, they may do it. Their money, their land, their choice.

Wrong. They can't violate anyone's rights.

I cannot have a say, the federal government cannot have a say, rightfully.

Dear God, I've already explained in detail that the states are also bound by the Federal Bill of Rights.

Display of religious symbols on private land does not violate the Constitution. So it's ok.

Sidewalks are public land.

But never mind. Can the people vote to ban any religious practice by individuals on public land?
 
obama is irritating me do you people not agree obama is not spending enough on programs to build more bridges and roads taxes are far to low in this country at the moment

Surely that is the apex of jesting. Obama is the king communist. Down with Obama and up with The Pope.
 
Back
Top Bottom