U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals shoots down ACLU

It's a perfect example of the types of "games" you like to play. I did to your comment excatly what you are doing with Jefferson's. You take out what small piece of it suits your needs and completely ignore the rest of the document. This is called taking something out of context. Since you seem to have such a hard time understanding this concept, I thought I would provide you an example. Of course you don't believe what is said above. Even though it is a direct quote of what you said. You people do this constantly. You enjoy calling me dishonest. I would say intentionally taking someones comments and using them out of context is pretty dishonest.

 

Well evidently the court of appeals agree's with me Rex. Under the understanding of reading the first amendment show me where in that statement you can read into the fact that it says i am infringing on someone else's rights if my kid prays in school if every kid is givin the right to worship or not worship as they see fit.

When they wrote these laws they were thinking that the People of America would be reasonable in their application.

Not a bunch of nut cases saing they are offended if it says the word God on a piece of paper.

 

No, that's not what you're doing. What you're doing is LYING, and you know it.

The Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter asking him the meaning of the First Amendment. He responded that it was meant to build a wall of separation between church and state.

Anybody who reads both those letters can easily see that you're lying, that I took nothing out of context, and that you're dishonestly trying to change the context of what Jefferson said.

And anybody who reads the thread that you alluded to can see that you're once again dishonestly trying to change the context of what I said.

You're blatantly dishonest. On top of that, for somebody who professes to hold the Bible in such high regard you brazenly violate the commandment against bearing false witness.

The rest of Mr. Jefferson's letter is support for his explanation that the First Amendment was intended to build a wall of separation. I ignored nothing. You're lying.

No, I don't enjoy calling you dishonest. I sincerely wish that you'd drop that hideous habit.

I would say the same thing, also. And I just demonstrated two cases in which you did it.

 

No you didn't.

Read what is writen on this subject in the other thread. The document is there and broken down. I'd post it here but that would be just to repetitive.

 

I agree there should be sparation. The problem is, how do you separate history from religion? For example, a few years ago a public school was ordered to remove a picture of Jesus from the hallway. The only problem I have with that, is that it's historical fact that Jesus (the person) did exist, he did have his followers, and was crucified on the cross. Now it's up to you and your faith to decide if he was the son of god, rose from the dead, and
will return again to us into the kingdom of god. So where to you draw the line with him. Historical figure or religious symbol? He was a leader of a large following who taught the way he felt life should be. Technically speaking, so did Hitler (just completely different points of view). But because people beleive that Jesus was the son of god and Hitler was a phsycotic dictator, Hitler gets more press in schools than Jesus. Even though it can be argued that Jesus carries more historical significance than Hitler does.

 

I agree. There is a huge difference between establishing a religion and making a statment of general religiousity. The day after the First Amendment was passed, the House of Representatives passed by a 2 to 1 margin a resolution calling for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. Obviously the men who wrote the First Amendment saw no contradition between the Constitution and Congress declaring a day of prayer.

 

The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you. They have the Ten Commandments hanging in one of their corridors. I think if the Ten Commandments are hung as part of a series of laws that have guided the human culture, it is generally found to be acceptable.

 

While I think we find ourselves on the same side of this issue, Saltyone, I have to tell you that the constitution is a secular document. It was not grounded in scripture, but in the secular ideals of the Enlightenment. That is not to say that many of the framers of the Constitution were not Christian. Many were. But they did not run to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John when creating the constitution. They referred to men such as Locke and Montesque. Had the Constitution been drawn up in 1687 instead of 1787, it would have most certainly been a religious document. Had it been framed in 1887 it would have probably made strong referrences to religious principles. But at the time it was drafted the new religious impules which were to make the 19th century into one of the great ages of religious activity, were not yet felt. As a result, the language of the Constitution reflects the spirit of the time, which was secular. However, I agree wholeheartedly that the First Amendment is little understood today. As I mentioned in recent posts, right after passing the First Amendment, the House of Representatives proclaimed a national day of prayer. They apparently saw no conflict between that act and the Constitution. There is a big difference between the establishment of a religion and a general statement of religiousity which a lot of people, such as the ACLU, does not seem to grasp.

 

Great research, Saltyone.

 

I wrote an article on the Ten Commandments problem a couple of months ago. The real problem boils down to the inability (or plain refusal) of the U.S. Supreme Court to nail down when it is permissible, and when it is not. This past summer, the Court shot down one display and allowed another ON THE SAME DAY without specifying what differentiated the two displays.

This area is a real quagmire for the Supreme Court due to the dual nature of the Ten Commandments. They are both a religious document as well as an important part of legal history. Hopefully we can get some stable guidance from the Court in the near future so as to cut down on the absurd amount of litigation the ACLU is bringing on the matter.

:usaflagwa