Leave it to San Francisco

[Ken King]

I've always looked at the entire phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" as meaning the law shouldn't respect, or give preference to, one faith over others. Is that not the way the courts have read the phrase?

And that is your fallacy, over-extension of the meaning and intent. That portion of the amendment was created solely to preclude the government from establishing a Federal/National Church.

 

[vraiblonde]

Is that not the way the courts have read the phrase?

I have always read that as Congress cannot make a national or official religion. Like how we have our national symbols or anthems, Congress cannot say, for example, that Christianity is the national religion. Nor can they force you to practice it.

 

[vraiblonde]

This topic is where a little history goes a long way. If you look back on why people started coming to America in the first place, then look at how things were before the Revolutionary War, the Constitution makes perfect sense. The Bill of Rights reflects the outrages that were taking place under King George that the colonists thought were unfair, that made them want to separate in the first place.

 

[2ndAmendment]

This topic is where a little history goes a long way. If you look back on why people started coming to America in the first place, then look at how things were before the Revolutionary War, the Constitution makes perfect sense. The Bill of Rights reflects the outrages that were taking place under King George that the colonists thought were unfair, that made them want to separate in the first place.

Those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

We, the people, are allowing our federal leaders to step on the Constitution. The Constitution has become an ignored document. The leaders say it is a "living" document. It is only in that it provides a way to be amended. Otherwise, the leaders are required to follow it to the letter, but they don't. We let them get away with it. We can expect to repeat the oppression and the revolutions at some point unless we, the people, wake up.

 

[Tonio]

That portion of the amendment was created solely to preclude the government from establishing a Federal/National Church.

As a parent, I'm personally uncomfortable with such a narrow interpretation. Because otherwise, there would be nothing to prevent public schools from instituting mandatory school prayer or teaching creationism instead of evolution.

 

[vraiblonde]

We can expect to repeat the oppression and the revolutions at some point unless we, the people, wake up.

I think people, in general, like to have an authority over them telling what to do every second of their day. Yes, there are a few who rail against it, but look at the majority of the population and what they do in their day-to-day lives:

They work for someone else, so they have a boss.

They join HOAs, so someone is telling them what they can and can't do on their property.

They don't pay a lot of attention to what their elected officials are doing, just go along with it.

They wouldn't dream of making a problem at their child's school when some Socialist teacher starts filling their head full of bullcrap.

They think the police and the courts will protect them from crime.

I think most people would be amenable to Communism because it's easier that way.

 

[vraiblonde]

Because otherwise, there would be nothing to prevent public schools from instituting mandatory school prayer or teaching creationism instead of evolution.

But they're a government entity, so it would be unconstitutional for them to do that. Private schools can do what they want. But the schools that all of us pay for have to be non-secular.

 

[Ken King]

Get a grip Tonio, fear will be your doom. That interpretation is the only one you can get from the text of the amendment. Maybe you should read the Constitution of the state and see if protection to your fears can be found there. Try looking at Article 36 of the Declaration Of Rights and I bet it eases your fears.

Here is the text if you can't find it;

That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief, provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion.

 

[tirdun]

Like it or not, the majority of the people of the United States say they are Christians. I have this for the minorities, suck it up and quit complaining.

The United States is a constituional democracy where the rights of the few are defended from being overruled by the will of the majority. Christianity is the faith of the majority, but only nationally. Take Utah, for example. If your child went to school there, would you feel comfortable with state schools teaching Mormon history or theology? After all in Utah, they're the majority.

"the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression" -- Thomas Jefferson March 1801

Further, which "Christian" group gets to pick the new religious icons? I guess Roman Catholics, since they hold the sub-majority (31% of Christians, 24% of USA). So the 10 commandments are the Catholic version (#2 is "name in vain" rather than "graven images", #9 and #10 are "shalt not covet") rather than the Jewish or Protestant, and we get the 73-book bible versus the 66.

What the heck, lets go even further! After all, with the rule of the majority in full swing we can probably achieve a national consensus on all sorts of troubling issues:

Abortion: The USA is about 59/41 Pro-Choice. Wow, got that all fixed, we can stop watching protests on the news. All you pro-lifers can just "suck it up and quit complaining". Although if we're going regional, Louisiana is 40/60 the other way. Well, tough crap Louisiana.

Gun control: Big majority are all for it, informed or not, so buh-bye NRA and 2nd Ammendment.

Forces in Iraq? Take a poll: hey, we're pulling out.

Taxes: 55% of Americans say taxes are too high, regardless of national debt or deficit. Majority rules, lower them.

Gay marriage, out: 55% but civil unions (which are essentially the same from a legal standpoint) in. So that ends that: gays can form civil unions but not marry.

Flag Burning: Out, by a narrow margin.

Oh, and what about the 2000 election? Toss all that "electoral" crap out the window. Gore won the majority of votes, so he's retroactively president.

 

[vraiblonde]

Abortion: The USA is about 59/41 Pro-Choice. Wow, got that all fixed, we can stop watching protests on the news. All you pro-lifers can just "suck it up and quit complaining". Although if we're going regional, Louisiana is 40/60 the other way. Well, tough crap Louisiana.

Gun control: Big majority are all for it, informed or not, so buh-bye NRA and 2nd Ammendment.

Forces in Iraq? Take a poll: hey, we're pulling out.

Actually, the statistics I've seen show just the opposite. But the rest of that makes an excellent point. We are not a majority-rules democracy - we are a representative Republic where ALL get a say, not just the majority.

 

[Tonio]

But they're a government entity, so it would be unconstitutional for them to do that. Private schools can do what they want. But the schools that all of us pay for have to be non-secular.

But my point is, if Ken is right about the First Amendment, there would be no language in the US Constitution preventing the public schools from pushing a specific religion on students.

Try looking at Article 36 of the Declaration Of Rights and I bet it eases your fears.

Thanks. That's from the Maryland Constitution. What about the federal level?

 

[vraiblonde]

But my point is, if Ken is right about the First Amendment, there would be no language in the US Constitution preventing the public schools from pushing a specific religion on students.

I didn't read Ken's post all the way through but it seems to me that pushing religion in public schools would be the same as pushing it at the IRS, or any other government institution - a distinct no-no.

 

[2ndAmendment]

As a parent, I'm personally uncomfortable with such a narrow interpretation. Because otherwise, there would be nothing to prevent public schools from instituting mandatory school prayer or teaching creationism instead of evolution.

There isn't in the U.S. Constitution. That is a local or state issue.

 

[2ndAmendment]

But they're a government entity, so it would be unconstitutional for them to do that. Private schools can do what they want. But the schools that all of us pay for have to be non-secular.

You misunderstand the First Amendment. It does not limit the states. It only places a limit on Congress. It is very specific.

Amendment I (1791)

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.

 

[2ndAmendment]

In my opinion, you are full of fecal matter.

 

[Bustem' Down]

You misunderstand the First Amendment. It does not limit the states. It only places a limit on Congress. It is very specific.

Which means that what California has done is perfectly ok.

 

[vraiblonde]

In my opinion, you are full of fecal matter.

Do you deny that we are a representative Republic and not a democracy?

 

[vraiblonde]

Which means that what California has done is perfectly ok.

Another good point!

 

[2ndAmendment]

Which means that what California has done is perfectly ok.

Not to the National pledge. It is a Federal pledge. It is also being done in the Federal courts and not the state courts.

Also, even thought the feds will not pursue it, all local, state, and federal gun control laws violate the intent of the Second Amendment.

Amendment II (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Not to the National pledge. It is a Federal pledge. It is also being done in the Federal courts and not the state courts.

Also, even thought the feds will not pursue it, all local, state, and federal gun control laws violate the intent of the Second Amendment.

But the state could opt to get rid of the pledge completely right?