Is displaying the Declaration of Independence in government buildings and schools unconstitutional?

American said:

If it is bestowed by God, it can't be removed by Man. And that's the real point of removing God from society, isn't it?

Click to expand...

If you're right, you're right, but there's not much sticking out there to hang a hat on.

Mycroft said:

No. There is nothing in the Constitution about "separation of church and state". The 1st Amendment simply prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, etc.

Displaying the Declaration of Independence does not violate the 1st Amendment.

Click to expand...

LOL! "Case Law" called for you. Declined to leave any message.

American said:

If it is bestowed by God, it can't be removed by Man. And that's the real point of removing God from society, isn't it?

Click to expand...

An omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being cannot be 'removed from society'.

cabse5 said:

SIAP. Atheists and the separation of church and state interpretation of the religion part of the 1st (by Jefferson's SCOTUS) would have you know that no religion is allowed in gov't and declaring that all men are created equal is an implication and inference of a creating being, of religion.

Click to expand...

Context is important, and if all that was said was “all men are created equal” then you’d have a stronger argument. But that phrase is but a drop in a bucket among a sea of phrases used in the DOI, in which the DOI served the broader purpose of justifying separation from England, and not announcing, declaring, or suggesting any religious thought. A reference to an abstract higher power in this context hardly qualifies as religious or religion.

The fact Aristotle, in his scientific writings, referred to an “unmoved moved” as the first cause, wouldn’t render a display of his scientific writings as propagating a religious belief in violation of the Establishment Clause. Same for the DOI.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OpportunityCost said:

No one that wants a state based solution for everything calls themselves a statist. He is suggesting such in this thread by changing a representative system for a direct elected system. Maybe you cannot see the logical conclusion of his suggestions, because you don't want to.

As a for instance he supported a federal gun registration database, violating the 2nd and 4th amendments, curtailing those rights.

Ask some of his fellow democrats, they can tell you what I have told you, he is a die hard democrat and supports state based solutions.

Click to expand...

Geez. You are still doing the same thing. You just don't get it. I don't know to put this simply enough that you understand the difference between him telling me what he believes and deciding whether or not to label himself, and you telling me what you think he believes and labeling him instead.

btthegreat said:

Geez. You are still doing the same thing. You just don't get it. I don't know to put this simply enough that you understand the difference between him telling me what he believes and deciding whether or not to label himself, and you telling me what you think he believes and labeling him instead.

Click to expand...

Not really, I am giving you examples and you aren't even examining them. You call me partisan, but you are allowing it to cloud your thinking.

pinqy said:

Any and all religions are allowed. The government cannot support or promote or prefer any religion over any other. The Supreme Court building has representations of Confucius, Muhammed, and Moses. Congress begins sessions with prayer. Presidents regularly swear on the Bible and say “God bless America.”

How do you think religion is forbidden?

Mostly, though, I was responding to your claim that “declaring that all men are created equal is an implication and inference of a creating being, of religion.”. Nobody claims that.

Click to expand...

This is getting into the tall weeds of a side note to this thread but, unfortunately, I blew the atheist dog whistle and you came a barkin'.

I understand you wish to keep traditions like swearing the newly elected president in with his hand on a Bible....BTW, does that tradition mean anything to you?

I meant in the laws of gov't not in the buildings of gov't when I posted where is religion in gov't. I understand you wish for all religions to be represented in governmental buildings and monuments, for examples. What about laws of gov't, though? Where are the laws based on the teachings of Confucius? The laws based on the teachings of Judaism? The laws based on the teachings of Christianity? The laws based on the teachings of Islam? The laws based on the teachings of any religion(s)?

I've realized some laws aren't executed and prosecutions not coming from violations of said laws due to circumstances like religion and political ideology.
I guess there is no such thing as the rule of law anymore and, like everything else, the law has become political.

The paradox, this topic shows, is atheism claims to be based on science. Science is based on observation and reason, instead of emotions. Yet, the atheists get very emotional about things that should not bother a rational mind. The reaction and claim do not add up.

Freedom of speech, to the purely rational intellect, does no need restrictions. If you are rational and self reliant, in thought and understand, and can draw your own conclusions, regardless of opposing data or opinion. You do not need big brother, to censor things, less they turn you into an emotional wreck. The scientist does not need to substitute bullying for his self reliant reason. This reaction by atheists, contradicts the atheist claim, that they are based on reason and science. They appear to show an emotional reaction associated with defending a dogma; bottomline, without the ability to rationally derive it. It is metastable and needs constant propping less it tip and fall over.

All men are created equal, was a vision of the future. Historically, since the beginning of civilization, there was always a class system, where the rich and powerful passed on and/or inherited wealth and opportunity. The poor could not move upward. Those in power could make the laws, needed to keep everyone else down. There was the ruling class, then peasants and slaves.

Jefferson and others saw the waste of human potential. They saw how some of then most talented people were stuck at the bottom, and how those who lacked character and talent, were often in charge, based only on inheritance or blood line. This made no sense for the new country. They saw a new future, where the classic class system was eliminated, and opportunity was open to all, based on talent and character; best of humanity.

This thinking comes from Christianity. It was not from Judaism, since Judaism believes in the class system; chosen race. Original Christianity defined two classes; children of the promise, and the children of the bondwoman. These two classes were blended among the classic ruling class, peasants and slaves. The children of the bondwomen were based on conformity to the traditions. The children of the promise were based on the charism of faith. The faithful; unique inner drive, no matter where they began, in terms of social class, could become the future movers and shakers. The children of the bondwomen were satisfied to remain where they were told they belonged in culture.

We are all created equal. However, it does no say we will all end up equal. We all start the same, but it comes down to choices we make; faith in a vision, or self imposed restrictions based on social conventions. Those who wish to stick with the conventions were the children of the bondwoman. They are slaves to the super ego of culture and its traditions. The alternative where the children of the promise who had faith in their inner visions; American dream. This group is the secret of American success.

This ideal; all created equal and then go on to choose to be the children of the promise, has made America a creative country, where anyone can be become upper class and president. President Trump is an example of someone who was not considered part of the ruling class. He was not supposed to win. It was fixed, like a bloodline. He was considered a low life or riff raft of old. He ran based on faith ; american dream, over the traditions of a ruling class system.

The reaction of the left to Trump, shows how the left wants to go backwards to a class system; ruling class and peasant class; Socialism. In that system he would have hit a glass ceiling. Trump to them was a peasant, who should not have been allowed out of his class. They hate the Constitution, since it destroyed the old time way of inheritance . They constantly try to censor the Constitution, less it give the riff raft the wrongs ideas.

The Democrats were in their hay day when there was slavery. Slavery created a class system similar to king and peasant, where the king owns the peasants. The permanent underclass approach of the Democrats, is also based on the old class system. No upward mobility helps to maintain the classic status quo.

OpportunityCost said:

Not really, I am giving you examples and you aren't even examining them. You call me partisan, but you are allowing it to cloud your thinking.

Click to expand...

No you are not 'giving me examples' those would come with links to the posts so that I could read what this poster said myself in proper context. You are giving me your partisan re- interpretation of a couple of cherry picked issues and using them to lead me to your conclusions.

btthegreat said:

No you are not 'giving me examples' those would come with links to the posts so that I could read what this poster said myself in proper context. You are giving me your partisan re- interpretation of a couple of cherry picked issues and using them to lead me to your conclusions.

Click to expand...

Ok whatever you say. Because it won't matter what I link. Point of fact: a federal gun purchase database does violate the fourth amendment, advocating for one is advocating violation of the fourth. Do you agree or disagree?

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

OpportunityCost said:

Ok whatever you say. Because it won't matter what I link. Point of fact: a federal gun purchase database does violate the fourth amendment, advocating for one is advocating violation of the fourth. Do you agree or disagree?

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I honestly have not looked at the issue from a constitutional perspective. Not sure how to write the bill, but I think its worth a try because I like the idea!

btthegreat said:

I honestly have not looked at the issue from a constitutional perspective. Not sure how to write the bill, but I think its worth a try because I like the idea!

Click to expand...

See? You are just another tribal liberal that thinks the rights of others are irrelevant to bull**** you like.

You are arguing with me over Haymarket not because it matters what he has stood for, but because you identify him as one of your own.

OpportunityCost said:

See? You are just another tribal liberal that thinks the rights of others are irrelevant to bull**** you like.

You are arguing with me over Haymarket not because it matters what he has stood for, but because you identify him as one of your own.

Click to expand...

Wow you learned all that from a post on gun registration! I am glad you could put your partisanship and tribal lust aside and pontificate about me based on principle!

btthegreat said:

Wow you learned all that from a post on gun registration! I am glad you could put your partisanship and tribal lust aside and pontificate about me based on principle!

Click to expand...

If you are willing to violate the constitutional rights of 50million+, why should you be trusted to uphold the constitution in other areas? Think it through.

OpportunityCost said:

If you are willing to violate the constitutional rights of 50million+, why should you be trusted to uphold the constitution in other areas? Think it through.

Click to expand...

You are the one who needs to do the thinking. I want my legislators to test the boundaries of the Heller decision to see if they can find language for a federal registry bill that might meet constitutional muster. Can you imagine circumstances where a conservative legislature might want to write a bill to test a SCOTUS precedent like say - Roe v Wade? Lets reverse your silly statement. Why should those legislators and the voters who gave them power be 'trusted' to uphold the constitution in other areas, if they are willing to violate the constitutional rights of 75 million women of child bearing age in the United States? Think about it. Here's a clue to the answer Checks and Balances among the three branches is pivotal to our entire system, that means each branch tests and challenges the other two, probing the limits of power, of policy and law.

btthegreat said:

You are the one who needs to do the thinking. I want my legislators to test the boundaries of the Heller decision to see if they can find language for a federal registry bill that might meet constitutional muster. Can you imagine circumstances where a conservative legislature might want to write a bill to test a SCOTUS precedent like say - Roe v Wade? Lets reverse your silly statement. Why should those legislators and the voters who gave them power be 'trusted' to uphold the constitution in other areas, if they are willing to violate the constitutional rights of 75 million women of child bearing age in the United States? Think about it. Here's a clue to the answer Checks and Balances among the three branches is pivotal to our entire system, that means each branch tests and challenges the other two, probing the limits of power, of policy and law.

Click to expand...

I do not want them to test Roe v Wade. The constitution is meant to constrain government even more than the checks and balances are. I do not want the legislature to believe their duty is to see which of my rights they can get away with violating.

You still aren't thinking very hard and are proving you don't know the posters here half as well as you think.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

OpportunityCost said:

I do not want them to test Roe v Wade. The constitution is meant to constrain government even more than the checks and balances are. I do not want the legislature to believe their duty is to see which of my rights they can get away with violating.

You still aren't thinking very hard and are proving you don't know the posters here half as well as you think.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

You need to learn to read. I did not ask you whether you were in favor of legislators testing Roe or presume you held that view.. I am well aware that there are a slim slice of conservatives who are pro choice. I suggested that to be consistent with your absurd position, you have to define every single conservative legislator or political figure who does or ever did seek to test it the boundaries of this 'right to privacy' as just as untrustworthy to uphold the constitution as I apparently am. That means virtually every conservative from the 1980s forward should never have been trusted with office because they all ran in favor of challenging this right to an abortion.

You are also not thinking very hard if you think you know what a 'right is and what one is not, because a federal court or Supreme court defined the difference for you in 1856, 1923, 1976, or 2014 with some precedent setting position. Once upon a time there was no right to be free of execution, if convicted of aggravated murder. Then SCOTUS decided in Furman v Georgia that the Constitution, in a plethora of cases that the imposition of capital punishment exceeded the authority of government by violating the eight and fourth amendments. It took a decade for conservative legislatures to learn how to rewrite their laws and challenge judicial boundaries with their , standards and tests imposed by SCOTUS, and successfully prevail asserting government's authority over civil libertarian concerns.

You are not thinking very hard if you think that conservatives are the great protector of constitutional rights and liberals are always broadening governmental powers. Most every governmental reach toward an broader view of police powers in the last 30 years and effort to shrink the scope of the fourth amendment search and seizure protections , has been with the almost universal support of conservative legislators and governors who ran on 'law and order' platforms. The Patriot Act is a perfect example. Among its features it included authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given to law enforcement to search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's consent or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, allowing the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Of the 67 nay votes of the original bill in both houses, 64 were progressive Democrats. 3 were libertarian type republicans.

You are also not thinking clearly if you only see these legislative 'tests' as shrinking rights as opposed to broadening them. The state legislatures in several states enfranchised women long before the 19th amendment and it was the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that first defined the rights of Native Americans to vote, not some SCOTUS decision

btthegreat said:

You need to learn to read. I did not ask you whether you were in favor of legislators testing Roe or presume you held that view.. I am well aware that there are a slim slice of conservatives who are pro choice. I suggested that to be consistent with your absurd position, you have to define every single conservative legislator or political figure who does or ever did seek to test it the boundaries of this 'right to privacy' as just as untrustworthy to uphold the constitution as I apparently am. That means virtually every conservative from the 1980s forward should never have been trusted with office because they all ran in favor of challenging this right to an abortion.

You are also not thinking very hard if you think you know what a 'right is and what one is not, because a federal court or Supreme court defined the difference for you in 1856, 1923, 1976, or 2014 with some precedent setting position. Once upon a time there was no right to be free of execution, if convicted of aggravated murder. Then SCOTUS decided in Furman v Georgia that the Constitution, in a plethora of cases that the imposition of capital punishment exceeded the authority of government by violating the eight and fourth amendments. It took a decade for conservative legislatures to learn how to rewrite their laws and challenge judicial boundaries with their , standards and tests imposed by SCOTUS, and successfully prevail asserting government's authority over civil libertarian concerns.

You are not thinking very hard if you think that conservatives are the great protector of constitutional rights and liberals are always broadening governmental powers. Most every governmental reach toward an broader view of police powers in the last 30 years and effort to shrink the scope of the fourth amendment search and seizure protections , has been with the almost universal support of conservative legislators and governors who ran on 'law and order' platforms. The Patriot Act is a perfect example. Among its features it included authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given to law enforcement to search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's consent or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, allowing the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Of the 67 nay votes of the original bill in both houses, 64 were progressive Democrats. 3 were libertarian type republicans.

You are also not thinking clearly if you only see these legislative 'tests' as shrinking rights as opposed to broadening them. The state legislatures in several states enfranchised women long before the 19th amendment and it was the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that first defined the rights of Native Americans to vote, not some SCOTUS decision

Click to expand...

My label may read conservative but I hold a great many libertarian views. Like I said, you don't know people here as well as you think.

Edit: now whose being tribal?

OpportunityCost said:

My label may read conservative but I hold a great many libertarian views. Like I said, you don't know people here as well as you think.

Edit: now whose being tribal?

Click to expand...

Wow, except I didn't! This is exactly my point all along. I don't know you as well as you know you. The difference between us is that I don't pretend I do! While you came across as having a strong libertarian streak ( a major sticking point between the two is often Roe), I was not about to tell you who you were or what you thought, if you wrote 'conservative', and that is how you see your views, then that is good enough for me! Its a respect thing. I don't pick your label for you and superglue it on your lapel. I just wish you would show that respect to other posters like Haymarket , and not tell them what you think they are, what you think they believe, and then tell them why they think that. Its arrogant as all hell.

btthegreat said:

Wow, except I didn't! This is exactly my point all along. I don't know you as well as you know you. The difference between us is that I don't pretend I do! While you came across as having a strong libertarian streak ( a major sticking point between the two is often Roe), I was not about to tell you who you were or what you thought, if you wrote 'conservative', and that is how you see your views, then that is good enough for me! Its a respect thing. I don't pick your label for you and superglue it on your lapel. I just wish you would show that respect to other posters like Haymarket , and not tell them what you think they are, what you think they believe, and then tell them why they think that. Its arrogant as all hell.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you do or you wouldn't have went off with your anti conservative propaganda and abortion arguments.

Haymarket has been posting here for years, he has shown exactly what he stands for. Maybe you don't know that but hey ignorance only cuts so far. Now you are trying to play it off and play me as the bad guy by making arguments I never advocated, and issues that aren't important to me and you think I am arrogant? Please.

OpportunityCost said:

Yeah, you do or you wouldn't have went off with your anti conservative propaganda and abortion arguments.

Haymarket has been posting here for years, he has shown exactly what he stands for. Maybe you don't know that but hey ignorance only cuts so far. Now you are trying to play it off and play me as the bad guy by making arguments I never advocated, and issues that aren't important to me and you think I am arrogant? Please.

Click to expand...

You have spent the last four posts NOT refuting a single post or argument of mine. You have dodged weaved and ignored. Its always arrogant to tell someone else what they think and why they think it. if you read my actual content you will find I never described your views on abortion, I discussed your assertion that to challenge or test a SCOTUS decision like either Heller or Roe, you must not be trustworthy as a slap in the face of virtually every conservative political figure from 1980 forward. You refused to discuss that assertion. Instead you changed the subject to your views on Roe. Tnat was not a response. It was a dodge.

I have never said that conservatives could not have 'libertarian' views or characterized yours. I said that you needed to do more thinking if you thought that conservatives were protectors of liberty while liberals were not. Conservatives have time and time again been champions of 'law and order' police powers like the patriot act, that were entirely inconsistent with the 'freedom' mantra that you suggest Haymarket endangers. So, once again you tell me you have 'libertarian' views as though that excused a contradiction you did not want to talk about. Are these conservatives, who's politics you purport in your own words to largely support, untrustworthy with power? Crickets.... I get crickets. You accuse me of arrogance for making assumptions you cannot prove I made, and then tell me why I made them. , when you are labeling Haymarkets views and then telling us why he holds them.

btthegreat said:

You have spent the last four posts NOT refuting a single post or argument of mine. You have dodged weaved and ignored. Its always arrogant to tell someone else what they think and why they think it. if you read my actual content you will find I never described your views on abortion, I discussed your assertion that to challenge or test a SCOTUS decision like either Heller or Roe, you must not be trustworthy as a slap in the face of virtually every conservative political figure from 1980 forward. You refused to discuss that assertion. Instead you changed the subject to your views on Roe. Tnat was not a response. It was a dodge.

I have never said that conservatives could not have 'libertarian' views or characterized yours. I said that you needed to do more thinking if you thought that conservatives were protectors of liberty while liberals were not. Conservatives have time and time again been champions of 'law and order' police powers like the patriot act, that were entirely inconsistent with the 'freedom' mantra that you suggest Haymarket endangers. So, once again you tell me you have 'libertarian' views as though that excused a contradiction you did not want to talk about. Are these conservatives, who's politics you purport in your own words to largely support, untrustworthy with power? Crickets.... I get crickets. You accuse me of arrogance for making assumptions you cannot prove I made, and then tell me why I made them. , when you are labeling Haymarkets views and then telling us why he holds them.

Click to expand...

FFS, you try to push buttons with the abortion issue, then you make assertions regarding how I should feel about conservatives. Your arguments are phony bull**** and they jump all over the map without knowing a damned thing about my background and demanding positions from me, straw man much? By the way, how you shaped your arguments and the illogical leaps you made showed your intent, you proved your assertions all on your own.

You are engaging in multiple assumptions and think I am engaging in your same fallacious thinking about another poster I have interacted with over and over on this site for years. Do yourself a favor, stop sticking your foot in your mouth.

OpportunityCost said:

FFS, you try to push buttons with the abortion issue, then you make assertions regarding how I should feel about conservatives. Your arguments are phony bull**** and they jump all over the map without knowing a damned thing about my background and demanding positions from me, straw man much? By the way, how you shaped your arguments and the illogical leaps you made showed your intent, you proved your assertions all on your own.

You are engaging in multiple assumptions and think I am engaging in your same fallacious thinking about another poster I have interacted with over and over on this site for years. Do yourself a favor, stop sticking your foot in your mouth.

Click to expand...

Bull****. I don't need to know your background. I picked an incredibly obvious example in Roe of an issue in which the majority of conservatives have been encouraging legislative challenges of the boundaries of a SCOTUS decision involving freedom because it isn't just a 'statist' from the left who does this. It does not matter what your view of Roe is, for the comparison to work. Because the issue has never been about Heller or Roe specifically Its about your tendency to dismiss groups with one silly partisan cliché. Now stop playing games and respond. Are republicans and conservatives who have been openly advocating for test cases on Roe for generations, all 'untrustworthy' with our freedoms or not? Is it just people who oppose abortion rights who get a free pass because they are conservatives, or do I get one too when I encourage my legislature to test the boundaries of Heller?


Once we are finished exploring if you are a partisan hack or if you are equally consistent in your dismissal of everyone who challenges SCOTUS on an issue of freedom, we will go back to discussing civil liberties and conservatives.

My assumption about you is that you really did not think very clearly about how often the progressives defend those liberties you think you hold so dear when they involve the second, and how often you should be bowing and kissing our feet, for defending fourth amendment protections which your political allies trample on.


I will know I put my foot in it, when you denounce all conservatives as just as untrustworthy statists with our freedoms as I and Haymarket apparently are. If your refuse to see the inconsistency, I will know you do NOT base your views on principle at all. Its based on labels and that makes you a partisan. So which are you, a principled conservative with libertarian views, or a crass partisan conservative, who fell into a trap you set yourself?

btthegreat said:

Bull****. I don't need to know your background. I picked an incredibly obvious example in Roe of an issue in which the majority of conservatives have been encouraging legislative challenges of the boundaries of a SCOTUS decision involving freedom because it isn't just a 'statist' from the left who does this. It does not matter what your view of Roe is, for the comparison to work. Because the issue has never been about Heller or Roe specifically Its about your tendency to dismiss groups with one silly partisan cliché. Now stop playing games and respond. Are republicans and conservatives who have been openly advocating for test cases on Roe for generations, all 'untrustworthy' with our freedoms or not? Is it just people who oppose abortion rights who get a free pass because they are conservatives, or do I get one too when I encourage my legislature to test the boundaries of Heller?


Once we are finished exploring if you are a partisan hack or if you are equally consistent in your dismissal of everyone who challenges SCOTUS on an issue of freedom, we will go back to discussing civil liberties and conservatives.

My assumption about you is that you really did not think very clearly about how often the progressives defend those liberties you think you hold so dear when they involve the second, and how often you should be bowing and kissing our feet, for defending fourth amendment protections which your political allies trample on.


I will know I put my foot in it, when you denounce all conservatives as just as untrustworthy statists with our freedoms as I and Haymarket apparently are. If your refuse to see the inconsistency, I will know you do NOT base your views on principle at all. Its based on labels and that makes you a partisan. So which are you, a principled conservative with libertarian views, or a crass partisan conservative, who fell into a trap you set yourself?

Click to expand...

You want to pretend hay is a garden variety Democrat that's on you, he's a hyper partisan statist that does not care whose rights get trampled in the process of implementing his "solutions".

So, if the case named didn't matter why bring up a watershed issue like abortion? Why not Kelo, or Miranda? You made assumptions. You are already making more by demanding I denounce both sides to satisfy your viewpoint. Talk about arguing both sides of an argument never made by your opponent.

You are telling me exactly who you are and all it took was one disagreement.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

cabse5 said:

I understand you wish to keep traditions like swearing the newly elected president in with his hand on a Bible....BTW, does that tradition mean anything to you?

Click to expand...

Your understanding is faulty: I don’t care one way or the other about minor religious traditions. And it doesn’t make difference if it means anything to me, it only matters to the person swearing.

I meant in the laws of gov't not in the buildings of gov't when I posted where is religion in gov't.

Click to expand...

Ah, that’s different. There have clearly been influences, and there have been laws based on religious motivation, but no laws should be based solely or mainly on religious principles.

I understand you wish for all religions to be represented in governmental buildings and monuments, for examples.

Click to expand...

I have no such wish. All religions should be equal under the law.

What about laws of gov't, though? Where are the laws based on the teachings of Confucius? The laws based on the teachings of Judaism? The laws based on the teachings of Christianity? The laws based on the teachings of Islam? The laws based on the teachings of any religion(s)?

Click to expand...

Nope. Shouldn’t happen.

I've realized some laws aren't executed and prosecutions not coming from violations of said laws due to circumstances like religion and political ideology.
I guess there is no such thing as the rule of law anymore and, like everything else, the law has become political.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Which laws aren’t enforced because if religious or political ideology? Examples, please.