Soviet Union survivor: President spits in face of every U.S. citizen

so when should the kid do this? sounds like you and a few others want teachers to dive right into advanced Algebra as soon as the pledge is done.

Please explain how not making noise for 30 seconds HAS TO BE a religous practice?

How is saying "please be quiet for a moment" forcing any kid to be religous or non-religous?

Because some kid in class "might" pray with that time, it needs to be outlawed? really?

allow me to rephrase it then.
why haven't you informed LSU of the unconstitutional nature of that silent moment on those fall Saturdays?

you appear pretty adamant about defending the constitution.
and that a "forced" moment of silence in a government building is unconstitutional.

Oh right, it's just a football game, who cares?
So now we get to pick and choose when it is unconstitutional in a government building?

 

The Constitution is very specific. Congress cannot create a state religion or limit the free excercise of religion. It is silent on freedom from religion.

Again reading things that aren't there.

Me thinks you are stretching things a bit.

They are a historically representation of the law that have had profound impact on society at every level.

Yeah. That is exactly what the Constitution grants us.

Personal liberties often are.

That would actually be a religous practice being imposed on us. Can't you see the difference.

When religous practices are forced on us. Can you not see the difference between a Menorah on a public display and a law requiring everyone to say the rosary?

I think general and vague is better. So did the founders.

It seems you get real specific with the Constitution when it pleases you, so I return to the point where is anyone granted freedom from religion.

 

same down here in Terrebonne.
can also buy after 2am from gas stations.
24/7 alcohol availability :thumb:

 

For the Nth time, you can't have one without the other. It's impossible.

If this is so, then why do only 2 (?) out of the 10 resemble any actual laws? You conceded earlier that they should have no bearings on any rulings. So, what is the point?

But, if 'some' religion is worked into our laws, how is that not imposing a religion on us? We must follow laws. We choose to follow religion. By interjecting religion into laws, the government is saying that we must follow that particular religion.

There IS no difference. I chose that example for the sole reason of illustrating my point. In fact, I even conceded such in my subsequent statement. You said that you want our laws to be made with some religion.

Of course. But the display of a religious relic is an endorsement of (a) religion by the state, and that is what I take issue with. Government and religion should be completely isolated from one another.

I think it's really obvious, but it's also apparent that you refuse to admit it. If the constitution states that the government cannot force religion on people, then I think that's pretty clearly making the case for freedom from religion. Besides, why would you want to deny anyone that right, anyway? Do you honestly believe that the government should facilitate people forcing religion on each other?

Again, what I'm not seeing is how any of this impacts you or your practices directly. You already have freedom of religion, what more do you want?

 

Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it so. Make a case or move on.

For the reason I mentioned a few posts up. They are an important historical marker in the history of law. You don't hear people bitching about the Hamurabi Code.

You are confusing the law with the government and public display of religion with legally bound practices.

No I said I don't mind a little religion in my government. I was speaking specifically to things like generic references to deity, swearing on a Bible, and public displays of religiosity. I said multiple times I don't want religion in the law.

I see two very different things in endorsement of a religion and display of a religious symbol.

I could say the same thing.

I think it is very specifically speaking to the establishment of a state church. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists says as much.

I don't think you have the right to not see anything religious ever while in public. I think that is stupid.

No I don't. I don't know how much more clear I can be on that

Again I don't see how a nativity scene on the town square impacts your ability to not believe god or gods exist even though all the rights we have come directly from one or many of them whatever it is.

 

so schools, post offices, D.A's office, etc. should be open on Christmas day (when it falls on a weekday)?

afterall, government agencies being closed that day is an obvious endorsement of Christianity.

Especially considering these agencies are up and running for Jewish holidays like Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

 

and I'm saying it apparently has never been ruled to be unconstitutional if it still happens in some government places.

I'm also arguing that a moment of silence does not force anyone to have any beliefs or thoughts other than the ones already planted in their skulls, and forces zero religous/non-religous beliefs on anyone.
It does not infringe on anyone's ability to remain an atheist, or christian, or jew, or muslim, etc. etc.
So it ain't unconstitutional to have the dam thing.