The Founding Fathers Never Promoted

[Rapacity]

Christianity in their policies. America is highly historically secular. America was founded upon freedom of and freedom from religion. The mob supports Christianity, but the Congress doesn't, or at least it didn't.

Case in point, the Treaty of Tripoli's clause 11:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This was passed unanimously by Congressional vote.

Can anybody imagine the American Congress of today condoning such language? Can you imagine the American media condoning such language today? Is America today letting the most vocal of Christianity's supporters breach the secularism of the American Declaration of Independence and it's Constitution, by having a disproportionate voice for Christianity and not for the religions of America's allies?

Discuss.

[Camarohusky]

Actually, Madison wrote that merging government and religion would not only harm government, but religion as well. In order to keep religion pure and free from the lusts of politics it had to be kept separate.

[SouthAsian]

That excerpt that was from the founding fathers time could in some capacity be perceived a being too liberal by some modern neo cons!I find it incredibly amusing, but also uplifting that our founding fathers had this idea that sought inclusiveness and cooperation regardless of religion and also race, place of origin...really they represented a momentous time in the development of this nation.They advanced this concept of truth,liberation, freedom, they created a new world order really.

[Memorize]

At 4/22/12 06:39 PM, Rapacity wrote: Christianity in their policies. America is highly historically secular. America was founded upon freedom of and freedom from religion. The mob supports Christianity, but the Congress doesn't, or at least it didn't.

Discuss.

These same people also held prayers before their official meetings.

Hate to break it to you, but the first amendment also applies to public officials.

It always cracks me up when you rightly point out "Separation of Church and State", only to quickly turn around and deny people's basic rights of freedom of religion/expression based on the mere notion of your sensitive, stupidass being 'offended'.

[AcetheSuperVillain]

At 4/22/12 06:39 PM, Rapacity wrote: Can anybody imagine the American Congress of today condoning such language? Can you imagine the American media condoning such language today? Is America today letting the most vocal of Christianity's supporters breach the secularism of the American Declaration of Independence and it's Constitution, by having a disproportionate voice for Christianity and not for the religions of America's allies?

Discuss.

That would create an absolute media shitstorm today. You should totally send a copy of that to Jon Stewart. (PS to anyone who didn't look it up, Mussulman & Mahometan = Muslim)

Somewhere in the sands of time, "mainstream America" has adopted this idiotic Crusader culture. Christian Whiteys feel the need to be "persecuted" so that they can feel like Paul, which means they have to dream up an enemy out of any convenient source. It has nothing to do with the actual Bible, just some ass-brained sense that they can't be as cool as their heroes from the Bible wars, Cold War or World Wars without a completely dehumanized and unredeemable enemy. When they run out of Muslims, they turn their bullshit to the democrats and our own democratically elected president. They don't seem to win by winning either, i.e, killing Bin Laden or removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan or establishing a native democratic government in Iraq and getting our troops home.

That said, I think Romney's about to prove to everyone that the conservative media has its head up its own ass so far that they don't even know what their own people are thinking. Nobody in the media ever liked Romney, and yet, he's now a shoe-in as the Republican presidential candidate. Hopefully this kind of epic fail on the media's part will get people to stop listening to them enough that they'll shut the hell up.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/22/12 08:29 PM, Memorize wrote: These same people also held prayers before their official meetings.

And it tore Madison up on the inside. He didn't like the intermingling of church and state, even in the form of payres before Congress, but knew that the fight against tradition would be daunting for a trivial outcome such as removing those prayers would be.

Hate to break it to you, but the first amendment also applies to public officials.

And? Whoever said it didn't?

It always cracks me up when you rightly point out "Separation of Church and State", only to quickly turn around and deny people's basic rights of freedom of religion/expression based on the mere notion of your sensitive, stupidass being 'offended'.

When is this the case? Really?

[djack]

At 4/22/12 10:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: When is this the case? Really?

How about when public religious displays are taken down during Christmas or the opposition to the 9/11 cross or coaches getting in trouble for bowing their head in acknowledgement of a players pre-game prayer. Each garnered fierce opposition from atheist groups who claimed that it was a violation of "Separation of Church and State" despite none of them actually being a form of support for any one religion. Wouldn't taking down, or forcing them to take down, a public Christmas display set up by a church constitute a violation of their right to publicly practice their beliefs? The display isn't illegal so long as the government doesn't deny the same right to another religious group and yet there are atheists who claim it's a violation of the first amendment (which I remind everyone does not include the phrase "Separation of Church and State") and sue to have it taken down. Isn't forbidding officials from participating in religious traditions a violation of their right to religious freedom? They didn't force anyone to join or even lead the prayer but they've been forbidden from even acknowledging the prayer by bowing their head. Isn't fighting the inclusion of a piece of history from a museum just because it has religious meaning to some people a violation of everyones' rights? You don't have to believe that the 9/11 cross is a sign from God to see the historical significance of it and the way it comforted millions of people after thousands of deaths rocked the country but because it did comfort those people there were, and may still be, atheists who attempted to block the cross from being part of the display.

[Iron-Hampster]

thing that people forget about some of Americas most historic presidents and the founding fathers is that they are some of the most immoral men you can imagine when you use the bible as a standard for morality. George Washington grew weed, lots of it, it was his main crop, and was the man who said America is not founded on Christian values. Ben Franklin was a womaniser and proud of it. Jefferson had a shit load of kids with his black slave, and he was married.

don't feel bad though, they still promoted all of the secular demands that conservatives make these days like small hands off government, minimal taxes, gun rights, tough on crime, (<-death penalty for counterfeiting) state rights etc. They just weren't blood thirsty pro war crusaders.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/22/12 10:44 PM, djack wrote:

At 4/22/12 10:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: When is this the case? Really?

How about when public religious displays are taken down during Christmas

The Government has no first amendment rights. The government does not have the right to put up religious symbols.

The display isn't illegal so long as the government doesn't deny the same right to another religious group and yet there are atheists who claim it's a violation of the first amendment (which I remind everyone does not include the phrase "Separation of Church and State") and sue to have it taken down.

That's because it is a violation of the first amendment. The government putting up one religious symbol over another is the government supporting religion. The equal opportunity only applies to the government allowing others to put up religious displays.

Isn't forbidding officials from participating in religious traditions a violation of their right to religious freedom?

That depends. Are they participating as a person or as a public official? There is nothing stopping them from participating in their civilian capacity, however when in their official capacity it becomes very complicated. When in their pofficial capacity they are not only a person, but a agent of the government. Participating in a religious ceremony in the official capacity is for too close to the government itself participating.

You don't have to believe that the 9/11 cross is a sign from God to see the historical significance of it and the way it comforted millions of people after thousands of deaths rocked the country but because it did comfort those people there were, and may still be, atheists who attempted to block the cross from being part of the display.

And putting a cross only is just plain stupid. In Wall Street in Manhattan the amount on non-christians is likely to be fairly high, and to ignore them or mislabel them is insulting, however, I don't necessarily know enough details to comment on the first amendment issue.

[djack]

At 4/22/12 11:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Government has no first amendment rights. The government does not have the right to put up religious symbols.

Those displays are put up by churches or religious individuals on public property with permission from the government. I'm not talking about lawsuits from teachers having Christmas trees up, although those are also pointlessly stupid, I'm talking about nativity scenes that are built and maintained by a church or religious group that get taken down because there are people who jump at the opportunity to attack the government for not sticking to "Separation of Church and State".

That's because it is a violation of the first amendment. The government putting up one religious symbol over another is the government supporting religion. The equal opportunity only applies to the government allowing others to put up religious displays.

The latter is what I was talking about and there are atheists who still sue over it and rather than dealing with the lawsuit the government backs down and either forces the people who set it up to tear it down or demolishes it on their own.

That depends. Are they participating as a person or as a public official? There is nothing stopping them from participating in their civilian capacity, however when in their official capacity it becomes very complicated. When in their official capacity they are not only a person, but a agent of the government. Participating in a religious ceremony in the official capacity is for too close to the government itself participating.

I used the example of the coach for a reason. He didn't participate, he bowed his head during a prayer. Even if you don't follow that religion it's considered a sign of respect to bow your head and I would do so during a prayer of any religion. Most people who do have different beliefs use that time to quietly pray on their own and still bow their head. In what way was that coach's actions participating in an official capacity worthy that would violate anyone's rights. It wasn't, he was only punished because there are people who would still claim to have been offended by it and sued the school if they didn't do something.

And putting a cross only is just plain stupid. In Wall Street in Manhattan the amount on non-christians is likely to be fairly high, and to ignore them or mislabel them is insulting, however, I don't necessarily know enough details to comment on the first amendment issue.

Who is mislabeling or ignoring them? The cross is part of the wreckage and thus a valid part of a museum on the subject. There was no talk about it being part of a shrine or a religious monument, just included in the museum as part of history which it was. The subject was brought up here last September. It was just supposed to be included in the museum that was part of the 9/11 memorial but atheists didn't want that and sued over it.

All of these examples are very similar. The original act itself (putting up a religious display on public property, bowing your head during a prayer, putting an item that some believe has religious significance in a museum) violated no one's rights but then a group with different beliefs claimed it was offensive and used threats of lawsuits to try forcing people into submission. I'm pretty sure that forcing compliance through the use of threats is generally illegal and violates more rights than any cross or nativity scene does.

[Memorize]

At 4/22/12 11:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The Government has no first amendment rights. The government does not have the right to put up religious symbols.

But if a Governor or any public official wants to hold a VOLUNTARY prayer, guess what?

First Amendment rights still apply.

That depends. Are they participating as a person or as a public official?

It doesn't matter.

They're still individuals with those rights.

There is nothing stopping them from participating in their civilian capacity, however when in their official capacity it becomes very complicated. When in their pofficial capacity they are not only a person, but a agent of the government.

A Government that guarantees those rights to everyone.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/23/12 12:24 AM, djack wrote: Those displays are put up by churches or religious individuals on public property with permission from the government. I'm not talking about lawsuits from teachers having Christmas trees up, although those are also pointlessly stupid, I'm talking about nativity scenes that are built and maintained by a church or religious group that get taken down because there are people who jump at the opportunity to attack the government for not sticking to "Separation of Church and State".

I am still a little iffy on this. It's much much much greyer than the government putting stuff up itself. This just allows for some abuse ( such as giving one group a better spot, or more space). If it were truly "whoever asks gets an equal spot" within reason I am 100% OK with it. If this were the case, I'd also have a hard time finding anything legally wrong with it either. Like I said before, it walks close enough to the line that small abuse could push it over.

I used the example of the coach for a reason.

I don't remember the full details of that one, but with what I do remember, that example would fall much closer to the individual capacity. The governmental capacity area would be more like a school teacher holding a voluntary prayer over the intercom, or an official leading a religious ceremony as the official, not as the person. There is a lot of grey area here.

Who is mislabeling or ignoring them? The cross is part of the wreckage

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking of something else. This is different as it was wasn't intentionally created.

I'm pretty sure that forcing compliance through the use of threats is generally illegal and violates more rights than any cross or nativity scene does.

There is more than one way to run afoul of this. You can flat out create a state religion, you can ban certain religions, you can force people to aprticipate in a certain religion, and you can support one religion over another. Most of the examples fall into the latter category. By participating in one religion over anotehr the government is giving that religion a preferred status so to speak. That sends the message that the preferred religion is the right one and will be given preferences in the eyes of the government.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/23/12 05:39 AM, Memorize wrote: But if a Governor or any public official wants to hold a VOLUNTARY prayer, guess what?

The fact that it is voluntary does little to change the fact that the Governor, in their capacity as governor, has chosen one religion to publicly support and ask the people to take part in, while ignoring the others. If the governor speaks for and represents the state in every case when they act in their opfficial capacity, why does this get excepted?

They're still individuals with those rights.

Like I said, the official acting in their individual capacity has individual rights. The official acting as an appendage of government does not.

A Government that guarantees those rights to everyone.

To every person, not to itself.

[Memorize]

At 4/23/12 10:27 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

The fact that it is voluntary does little to change the fact that the Governor,

His being a Governor doesn't change the fact that he's still a person.

Like I said, the official acting in their individual capacity has individual rights. The official acting as an appendage of government does not.

Yes, it does.

So long as no one else's rights are being violated.

I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to ban what other people say or do (if it doesn't harm you) simply on the basis of you being a sensitive prick.

You're acting like those idiots who complained about a Mosque being built near Ground Zero.

To every person, not to itself.

A public official is still a person.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/23/12 12:47 PM, Memorize wrote: His being a Governor doesn't change the fact that he's still a person.

His beign a person doesn't change the fact that when he acts as a governor in his official capacity, his actions and his words represent the government.

So long as no one else's rights are being violated.

When a government official participates in a religious act, symbol, speech in their opfficial capacity it is no different than a governmental organization participating.

I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to ban what other people say or do (if it doesn't harm you) simply on the basis of you being a sensitive prick.

WHen a government official participates in their capacity as an official, they ARE infringing on the rights of others. The rights of others to be free froma state that supports one religion over another. Face it, government officials ARE the state when they are in their official capacity.

You're acting like those idiots who complained about a Mosque being built near Ground Zero.

Not really. Seeing as the builders of the Mosque had no position in government and were not supporting one religion over another as a part of the government. There was no intermingling of state and religion in that issue.

A public official is still a person.

And? A public official is still an arm of the State.

[AcetheSuperVillain]

When a government official participates in a religious act, symbol, speech in their opfficial capacity it is no different than a governmental organization participating.
WHen a government official participates in their capacity as an official, they ARE infringing on the rights of others. The rights of others to be free froma state that supports one religion over another. Face it, government officials ARE the state when they are in their official capacity.

Got to agree with this. I don't care if a congressman says grace before he eats or prays for wisdom during a campaign, but when they can't put aside their religion during an official meeting or a public address, they are stepping out of bounds. The whole reason for Separation of Church and State is that the government should make decisions with its brains, not its Bible, for the sake of the American people, not the will of their Lord.

[morefngdbs]

The whole reason for Separation of Church and State is that the government should make decisions with its brains, not its Bible, for the sake of the American people, not the will of their Lord.

;;;
Nicely said & I couldn't agree more, but its not just the bible, any religious document is IMO suspect.

While I have been accused by many here at Newgrounds of being an atheist, I believe in a divine power & while I am unrepentantly & completely against all religious groups.
More & more it seems to me that people attempting to get elected are using their religious beliefs to get others of the same religion to vote for them, simply for that reason...& I do find that to be scary, & frankly shouldn't be allowed to even be spoken of during campaigning.

My dad sent me this photo , it obviously picks on one religion, but you don't have to look very far to find the faults in any of them.

how many starving children could be fed this month on what this one item is worth ?
How many thousands could be innoculated against easily prevetable diseases like polio ,yet religious groups hold trillions of dollars in wealth of icons & art work & they tell us how pious & holy and good they are ! ! !

[Memorize]

At 4/23/12 03:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

His beign a person doesn't change the fact that when he acts as a governor in his official capacity, his actions and his words represent the government.

A Government whose supreme law guarantees ALL PEOPLE freedom of Religion, Expression, Assembly, and Speech.

You're not honestly going to tell public officials that they can't "swear" while giving a Speech because someone may be offended.

No, you'll point to the first amendment to defend said politician.

No different than what I'm doing.

When a government official participates in a religious act, symbol, speech in their opfficial capacity it is no different than a governmental organization participating.

Funny how you still say that after I explained that the founders still did ALL the things you're 'against' while writing the Constitution.

Too Inconvenient for you? lol

WHen a government official participates in their capacity as an official, they ARE infringing on the rights of others.

Bullshit.

Infringing requires someone to harm, hinder, or hold back someone else.

In no way does doing something so damned vague as holding a voluntary prayer where no one is forced to participate even come close.

The rights of others to be free froma state that supports one religion over another.

A public official wanting to do a voluntary prayer on his/her own is not a support of religion.

You obviously have no idea what "Separation of Church and State" means.

In reference above, I'd bet you wouldn't say the same thing about public officials using "offensive language."

You wouldn't say that you "have a right to not be offended by someone's words, so I get to ban it."

Face it, government officials ARE the state when they are in their official capacity.

A state who guarantees EVERY INDIVIDUAL the bill of rights.

You're acting like those idiots who complained about a Mosque being built near Ground Zero.

Not really.

Yes, really.

Seeing as the builders of the Mosque had no position in government and were not supporting one religion over another as a part of the government. There was no intermingling of state and religion in that issue.

It was an analogy.

You're an idiot.

And? A public official is still an arm of the State.

Once again: A state whose founding law Guarantees ALL PEOPLE the first Amendment.

Regardless of whether or not a worthless, overly sensitive, half-wit like you has your poor, little feelings hurt.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/23/12 08:29 PM, Memorize wrote: You're not honestly going to tell public officials that they can't "swear" while giving a Speech because someone may be offended.
No, you'll point to the first amendment to defend said politician.
No different than what I'm doing.

Actually it is quite different. There is nothing in the constitution saying that the government cannot speak words to people. However, there is something stating that the government cannot support a religion.

The State can swear all it wants without violating anyone's first amendment rights. However, the State cannot support a religion without running afoul of the First Amendment. An official swearing is merely clumsily exercising their first amendment. An official participating in religion in their official capacity is the government participating in a religion which is against the free establishment clause.

Funny how you still say that after I explained that the founders still did ALL the things you're 'against' while writing the Constitution.

And Madison hated it. I have to agree with Madison.

Bullshit.
Infringing requires someone to harm, hinder, or hold back someone else.

So separate but equal is good for you? I mean if something is equal by its classification there is no way it can have any inherent inequality to it. An official or a state actively participating in a religion in no way indicates that that religion is favored by the government and its laws.

A public official wanting to do a voluntary prayer on his/her own is not a support of religion.

A public official doing a personal prayer in their own time is an individual act. A public official leading a voluntary prayer is supprt of that religion.

You obviously have no idea what "Separation of Church and State" means.
In reference above, I'd bet you wouldn't say the same thing about public officials using "offensive language."
You wouldn't say that you "have a right to not be offended by someone's words, so I get to ban it."

You don't have a right to be free from words of the State. You do have the right to be free from religious leanings of the State. I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the Freedom of Speech and how the Free exercise clause work.

A state who guarantees EVERY INDIVIDUAL the bill of rights.

But in their official capacity they are not an individual, but part of the state.

Yes, really.
It was an analogy.
You're an idiot.

This is all you can come up with? I provide you with a cogent difference and your dagger of an answer is "you're an idiot"? How's about you try to refute the point. Your analogy was bad and doesn't compare. Tell me how it compares or drop it.

Once again: A state whose founding law Guarantees ALL PEOPLE the first Amendment.

Once agin: an official acting in their official capacity is an arm of the state and not an individual. The moment they step out of their official capacity they become an individual to which the First Amendment fully applies.

Regardless of whether or not a worthless, overly sensitive, half-wit like you has your poor, little feelings hurt.

Seems like my half-wit is wholly owning you.

[Memorize]

At 4/23/12 08:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The State can swear all it wants without violating anyone's first amendment rights. However, the State cannot support a religion without running afoul of the First Amendment. An official swearing is merely clumsily exercising their first amendment. An official participating in religion in their official capacity is the government participating in a religion which is against the free establishment clause.

"Shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion."

Learn how to read, you moron.

And Madison hated it. I have to agree with Madison.

But he didn't call it illegal, now did he?

I don't like it either. But I recognize the stupidity of telling people they can't do it.

So separate but equal is good for you?

Segregation was MANDATED by the state.

I bet you wouldn't be bitching like this over voluntary, all minority schools, or All-boys/All-Girls campus'.

I mean if something is equal by its classification there is no way it can have any inherent inequality to it. An official or a state actively participating in a religion in no way indicates that that religion is favored by the government and its laws.

I love how you compare Government force with that of voluntary actions.

A public official doing a personal prayer in their own time is an individual act. A public official leading a voluntary prayer is supprt of that religion.

But not an establishment of one, nor creation of a law.

Not to mention being voluntary and falling under the view of the 1st amendments "FREEDOM OF SPEECH/ASSEMBLY"

You don't have a right to be free from words of the State. You do have the right to be free from religious leanings of the State. I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the Freedom of Speech and how the Free exercise clause work.

No, you're just an idiot.

Because guess what a prayer is? Speech. Protected by... you guessed it, the first Amendment.

Saying a prayer is not a law.
Nor are you forcing participation.

And as someone who could care less about the existence of God or whether or not religion is "right", I find it rather pathetic how much you care so much about something that doesn't even matter, logically.

But in their official capacity they are not an individual, but part of the state.

Let me go shoot one of them when they're giving a speech on their official capacity, then tell me whether or not they were individuals.

This is all you can come up with? I provide you with a cogent difference and your dagger of an answer is "you're an idiot"? How's about you try to refute the point.

Because you're arguing with an analogy that I made that you purposefully stretched beyond its original meaning.

Either that or...

Once again: You're an idiot.

Seems like my half-wit is wholly owning you.

Only a half-wit would think so.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/23/12 09:52 PM, Memorize wrote: "Shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion."
Learn how to read, you moron.

To which the Courts have expnaded to include any state action, and rightfully so. Don't like it? Say how stupid the Supreme Court Justices are, not me.

But he didn't call it illegal, now did he?

He wanted to. He just knew that the fight would endanger the young government for a relatively small outcome.

Segregation was MANDATED by the state.

Mandated or not, the rationale is the same. Both ideas are based on the false idea that the classification is OK so long as the base of it is not discriminatory. That just is not true.

I bet you wouldn't be bitching like this over voluntary, all minority schools, or All-boys/All-Girls campus'.

If they're private schools they have the right to do so, within reason.

I love how you compare Government force with that of voluntary actions.

An act by an official in their offical capacity IS an act of government.

Not to mention being voluntary and falling under the view of the 1st amendments "FREEDOM OF SPEECH/ASSEMBLY"

Again, the government doesn't have the same rights that people do. The government is constrained by all of the rules of the First Amendment. The government cannot exercise free speech when it supports a religion.

Because guess what a prayer is? Speech. Protected by... you guessed it, the first Amendment.

Again, the State doesn't have First Amednment Rights.

Saying a prayer is not a law.
Nor are you forcing participation.

A govverment led prayer is a state action. The choosing of one religion over another is a mform of de facto coerion and it places a great deal of pressure on those who are not a part of that religion to follow it or at least participate.

Let me go shoot one of them when they're giving a speech on their official capacity, then tell me whether or not they were individuals.

The definition of individual is different in the criminal context than it is in the Constitutional Law context. Individual for terms of criminal law is purely biological. Individual in terms of Constitutional Law is a status.

Because you're arguing with an analogy that I made that you purposefully stretched beyond its original meaning.

That's because the priginal meaning was a stretch.

Once again: You're an idiot.

Cause you know exactly what about law? Oh yeah, nothing.

[digiman2024]

At 4/22/12 06:39 PM, Rapacity wrote: Christianity in their policies. America is highly historically secular. America was founded upon freedom of and freedom from religion. The mob supports Christianity, but the Congress doesn't, or at least it didn't.

ok i know the spot where it says freedom of religion, but nowhere in my pocket constitution can i find anything stating freedom from religion, the simple thought that most atheist believe that they shouldnt have to look at Christmas decorations in public spaces is false. look im not an atheist im more of a christian but i do not believe everything in the bible (hell i can tell you a dozen times it contradicts itself) and imo all organized religions are b/s.

oh and if you bring up the supreme court i will go over the whole majority opinion with you word for word.

i am sick and tired of " you cant say merry christmas, it has to be happy holidays" ,because i will come back with "merry christmas mother f**ker"

[Memorize]

At 4/24/12 12:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

To which the Courts have expnaded to include any state action, and rightfully so. Don't like it? Say how stupid the Supreme Court Justices are, not me.

I will tell you how stupid you are.

You wouldn't accept a decision by the Supreme court if it re-ruled favorably of Dredd Scott.

Mandated or not, the rationale is the same.

Yes... because COMPLETELY OPPOSITE forces... are EXACTLY the same.

Fuck you.

If they're private schools they have the right to do so, within reason.

Key phrase: "Within Reason"

Highly subjective and not based on Constitutionality.

An act by an official in their offical capacity IS an act of government.

Still not a law, and still does not harm others or tell them what they can/can't do.

Again, the government doesn't have the same rights that people do. The government is constrained by all of the rules of the First Amendment. The government cannot exercise free speech when it supports a religion.

You're right... the Government doesn't have any rights... but ALL people do.

Again, the State doesn't have First Amednment Rights.

But everyone, regardless of job title, do.

A govverment led prayer is a state action.

Except that's not what's even happening today.

The problem is that you're treating the Government as a person... it's not.

Not different than how a Corporation isn't a person (unless you agree with the Supreme court in saying it is... which I doubt you'll do).

There are ONLY individuals. And as such, they have those rights.

The choosing of one religion over another is a mform of de facto coerion and it places a great deal of pressure on those who are not a part of that religion to follow it or at least participate.

So it's ultimately my peer's fault that I started smoking?

The definition of individual is different in the criminal context than it is in the Constitutional Law context. Individual for terms of criminal law is purely biological. Individual in terms of Constitutional Law is a status.

Queue pulling a convenient excuse from your ass... GO!

Cause you know exactly what about law? Oh yeah, nothing.

Apparently more than the half-wit.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/24/12 02:39 AM, Memorize wrote: You wouldn't accept a decision by the Supreme court if it re-ruled favorably of Dredd Scott.

What does Dredd Scott have to do with this issue?

Yes... because COMPLETELY OPPOSITE forces... are EXACTLY the same.

They both say that so long as two different things are given a base level of equality, they can be legally classified. This opens the door for one, dependin gon how it is treated, to become preferred over another, such was the case under segregation.

Fuck you.

Your insults and vulgarity are really making your side seem strong here.

Key phrase: "Within Reason"

Within the other law of the United States.

Highly subjective and not based on Constitutionality.

Actually it is based on constitutionality. The right to association (and with it exclusion) is a Constitutional right with boundaries. Even private groups can be subject to these boundaries depending on the laws of the jurisdiction and the circumstances.

Still not a law, and still does not harm others or tell them what they can/can't do.

Again, doesn't need to be a law. It merely needs to be a State Action.

You're right... the Government doesn't have any rights... but ALL people do.

And all people do. When a person's acts are imputed to the government, however, they are limited in what they can do.

But everyone, regardless of job title, do.

When a person is acting as the State they do not. Those rights return the instant they no longer are acting as the State.

The problem is that you're treating the Government as a person... it's not.

Actually, I am doing the opposite. I am treating a person as the government.

There are ONLY individuals. And as such, they have those rights.

No. The State is always an entity.

Apparently more than the half-wit.

Prove it then. Show me you know something about the Law, not just that you can google and type insults.

[Memorize]

At 4/24/12 11:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

What does Dredd Scott have to do with this issue?

I found it funny how you hid behind a Supreme Court decision, even though you obviously wouldn't just follow every decision they've made.

They both say that so long as two different things are given a base level of equality, they can be legally classified. This opens the door for one, dependin gon how it is treated, to become preferred over another, such was the case under segregation.

You know, you probly aren't worth anyone's time when you're incapable of seeing the difference between force and voluntarism.

Your insults and vulgarity are really making your side seem strong here.

It amuses me when you think I care.

Within the other law of the United States.

What Other Law?

Actually it is based on constitutionality. The right to association (and with it exclusion) is a Constitutional right with boundaries. Even private groups can be subject to these boundaries depending on the laws of the jurisdiction and the circumstances.

No.

If any law were made in any jurisdiction restricting that right, then it would be illegal.

Again, doesn't need to be a law. It merely needs to be a State Action.

You heard it here folks, the law doesn't matter.

And all people do. When a person's acts are imputed to the government, however, they are limited in what they can do.

You're still confusing the Government itself as a person.

When a person is acting as the State they do not. Those rights return the instant they no longer are acting as the State.

Wrong.

Those rights are only taken away if they specifically violate the rights of others and are found guilty by a jury of their peers.

Actually, I am doing the opposite. I am treating a person as the government.

lol, if you want to pretend to.

No. The State is always an entity.

Which makes you...

wait for it...

an idiot.

I like how you glossed over the Corporation example btw.

Prove it then. Show me you know something about the Law, not just that you can google and type insults.

Says the guy who linked me to Wikipedia.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/24/12 12:22 PM, Memorize wrote: I found it funny how you hid behind a Supreme Court decision, even though you obviously wouldn't just follow every decision they've made.

First off, I said I agreed with the decision. Second, the vast majority of the decisions are sound and work well. In the 200+ year history of the Court they have had about 20 or so truly bad decision. That's a pretty good record.

You know, you probly aren't worth anyone's time when you're incapable of seeing the difference between force and voluntarism.

And the same for you if you can't see that two different systems can be based off of the same fundemtnally flawed concept.

What Other Law?

Local anti-discrimination statutes as well as the various Civil Rights Acts,

If any law were made in any jurisdiction restricting that right, then it would be illegal.

But anti-discrimination statutes do restrict the ability to freely associate, and yet they have more often than not been considered constitutional.

You heard it here folks, the law doesn't matter.

You went from grain of sand to mountain range in one step...

You're still confusing the Government itself as a person.

How am I doing that?

Those rights are only taken away if they specifically violate the rights of others and are found guilty by a jury of their peers.

Where does a jury come in on any issue of constitutionality? Constitutionality never should touch a jury as it is not a question of fact.

It is extremely common in law for people to gain and lose rights based on temporary and transient status changes. Acting in one's employment duty v. outside of the scope of an employment is an extremely common status change in numerous fields of law.

Which makes you...
wait for it...
an idiot.

Again, how so?

I like how you glossed over the Corporation example btw.

Corporate personhood has nothing to do with a government official acting in their official capacity.

Says the guy who linked me to Wikipedia.

When did I do that?

[AcetheSuperVillain]

At 4/25/12 06:19 PM, Ilssm wrote: Don't take anything the OP says serious, he's just a try-hard thinks-he's-funny obnoxious troll.

If you don't believe me, just look at his post history.

^ Do you really always have to be an asshole about this? This topic is a perfectly fine debate (if flamey) and nobody has gotten trolled. Logic and Justice have already prevailed without you waving your dick around about it.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/25/12 06:19 PM, Ilssm wrote: Don't take anything the OP says serious, he's just a try-hard thinks-he's-funny obnoxious troll.

I won't take any of it seriously. Well, except for the parts that were worthy of serious discussion (i.e. the entire post)

If you don't believe me, just look at his post history.

Even the most seasoned trolls can drop down a good post. You can judge bias based off of prior posts, but you can't always judge seriousness off of them, especially in a politics forum.

[MrFlopz]

This is what I've been arguing but the revisionist historians in the Republican party insist of parroting the idea that the United States was founded on Christian values. They claim there's a secular agenda planning to undermine the religious history of this country. What they forget is that this country has always been secular and was founded by atheists like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

[Thecrazyman]

At 4/22/12 07:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Actually, Madison wrote that merging government and religion would not only harm government, but religion as well. In order to keep religion pure and free from the lusts of politics it had to be kept separate.

That said, the Wall of Separation between State and Religion must be preserved as it's meant to be preserved, sadly however I took notice that the Wall of Separation has been violated several times due to the sheer fact that some of those public schools have actually been allowing some of the priest (especially Christian priest) to preach within the public schools.

Such individuals that manage the public schools that are known to violate the wall of Separation between State and Religion should be either fired or in some cases be put away in Federal Prison for the wrongs they committed against that Wall of Separation.

People will come to know why this nation isn't meant to be a Christian Nation, all who are born within the North American Lands are native to the North American Lands, one doesn't have to have to be a full-fledged Indian to know this nor doesn't even have to have Indian blood to be born in America.

That said, the things in America that are meant to be preserved need to be preserved, the Wall of Separation between State and Religion is one of those things, eventually different versions of Wall of Separations will also take place as they will serve as "The Laws of Freedom".

Our Independence as a nation is already threaten as is and the Independent Party will rise to power for this reason.