Seperaqtion of Chirch and State huh ?

[This_person]

Do you see evidence, in the un-amended constitution, that the lawmaker didn't want the government to have the power to use force and violence in matters of religion?

Are we having a discussion, or are you grilling me on the stand?

 

[FredFlash]

I'll answer you when you answer me.

I read you to say that you have seen the light and now realize that a reasonable person could interpret the First Amendment to prohibit the President from issuing religious recommendations.

 

[This_person]

I read to mean that you now realize that a reasonable person could interpret the First Amendment to prohibit the President from issuing religious recommendations.

This is just a piece of unsolicited advice, but you should probably stop deciding what people mean when they say something. You're rarely right.

No, I mean that I'm tired of answering questions to entertain you. I'm trying to have a discussion, but it seems you only want to fire questions without actually reading or properly understanding the responses.

Let me give you an idea what I mean.

ME: I don't think a reasonable person would think that, do you?

YOU: Well, yes, I do think so. Here's a couple of people that I consider reasonable that I interpret to think my way.

ME: I disagree, and here's why. -or- I agree, good point.

Do you see the difference between this exchange and what you're trying to do?

 

[FredFlash]

The bolded portion of the first part of the question would be unconstitutional, by reason of the first amendment.

I thought you said that "an establishment of religion" had to employ force and violence.

A US Bureau of Baptism, doing no more than making recommendations, would not violate the first amendment.

Now, I'm sure you said it

Congress passing a law, signed by the president (or otherwise allowed to become a law) that establishes a religious doctrine would not be allowed.

Are the duties to pray, fast and trust in God religious doctrines?

 

[This_person]

I thought you said that "an establishment of religion" had to employ force and violence.

Can you show me a post where I used the words force and/or violence in this context?

Now, I'm sure you said it

Because I said "doing no more than making recommendations"? No, that means "not a law, or some other form of discriminatory action against those who fail to follow the advice". Does that help clear up your confusion?

Are the duties to pray, fast and trust in God religious doctrines?

"The duties? Yes, probably they would be received that way by most reasonable people.

Do you see a duty in every presidential recommendation in every speach he gives? Is it, therefore, my DUTY to support the troops, give more time for the surge to work, to take each and every point made at each and every press conference by each and every Press Secretary as having the full force of law?

Then, is every speach made by each and every Speaker of the House, and each and every cabinet member, and each and every President of the Senate, etc., to also be held with the same force of law?

Are these your points? You've yet to state one.

 

[This_person]

I am not sure you remember what we're even talking about here, when we start discussing recommendational authority, or other such stuff. So, hopefully, this will help:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.

 

[FredFlash]

Can you show me a post where I used the words force and/or violence in this context?

You've made statements implying that if there is no coercion then there is no "establishment of religion."

 

[This_person]

You've made statements implying that if there is no coercion then there is no "establishment of religion."

Can you point me to one?

I've made statements that say if it's not a law, or carries something with the enforcement of a law, or is somehow discriminatory against people that don't follow whatever it is, that is a form of "establishment".

I am fairly certain I never talked about force, violence, or coersion. But, if you can point me to the post, I'd sure like to see it.

 

[FredFlash]

Because I said "doing no more than making recommendations"? No, that means "not a law, or some other form of discriminatory action against those who fail to follow the advice". Does that help clear up your confusion?"

There is another one of those statements which imply that if there is no coercion there is "no establishment of religion."

 

[This_person]

There is another one of those statements which imply that if there is no coercion there is "no establishment of religion."

I thought at first that maybe my communication skills were even worse than I thought them to be. But, no, I think it's your inference-ability.

Or, do I incorrectly understand that a law is different than "coersion, force, or violence"?

 

[FredFlash]

The duties? Yes, probably they would be received that way by most reasonable people.

Do you see a duty in every presidential recommendation in every speech he gives? Is it, therefore, my DUTY to support the troops, give more time for the surge to work, to take each and every point made at each and every press conference by each and every Press Secretary as having the full force of law?

Then, is every speech made by each and every Speaker of the House, and each and every cabinet member, and each and every President of the Senate, etc., to also be held with the same force of law?

Are these your points? You've yet to state one.

Who has jurisdiction over religion? God or the civil authorities?

Who is going to be the final judge whether one's religion was the truth? What are the consequences of being wrong?

 

[This_person]

Who has jurisdiction over religion? God or the civil authorities?

Neither. The individual has jurisdiction over their religion.

Perhaps you missed the question, though. Is it your contention that a duty has the same force as a law, and that a recommendation in a speech constitutes a duty? Therefore, a speach holds the same force as law?

See how I ask the question instead of stating that I can just assume this is what you're saying. It's called discussion.

 

[FredFlash]

Can you point me to one?

I've made statements that say if it's not a law, or carries something with the enforcement of a law, or is somehow discriminatory against people that don't follow whatever it is, that is a form of "establishment".

I am fairly certain I never talked about force, violence, or coersion. But, if you can point me to the post, I'd sure like to see it.

I don't want to put words in your mouth. I just want to know if you construe "an establishment of religion" to include the setting up of a religious duty by the government, if the setting up imposes no penalty on those that do not comply.

For example, Congress usurps God's authority over religion and passes a law which recommends that we trust in God, but imposes no penalty on those that do? Is that an establishment of religion?

For another example, Congress assumes the prerogatives of the Almighty and that every one under its jurisdiction has a duty to express a trust in God, and makes a law expressing, on behalf of all, a trust in God, but imposes no penalty on those who disavow trust in God. Is that an establishment of religion?

 

[This_person]

Who has jurisdiction over religion? God or the civil authorities?

Who is going to be the final judge whether one's religion was the truth? What are the consequences of being wrong?

You added this second part after I answered the first.

The answer to those questions, my friend, is blowing in the wind. If we knew the answer to that, there would be virtually no war, no disagreements, and no need for a first amendment. Each person is the only one who can decide those things for themselves.

 

[This_person]

I don't want to put words in your mouth. I just want to know if you construe "an establishment of religion" to include the setting up of a religious duty by the government, if the setting up imposes no penalty on those that do not comply.

For example, Congress usurps God's authority over religion and passes a law which recommends that we trust in God, but imposes no penalty on those that do? Is that an establishment of religion?

For another example, Congress assumes the prerogatives of the Almighty and that every one under its jurisdiction has a duty to express a trust in God, and makes a law expressing, on behalf of all, a trust in God, but imposes no penalty on those who disavow trust in God. Is that an establishment of religion?

I guess that would depend on what we're calling a "duty". So, I'll ask again:


Is it your contention that a duty has the same force as a law, and that a recommendation in a speech constitutes a duty? Therefore, a speach holds the same force as law?

 

[FredFlash]

Neither. The individual has jurisdiction over their religion.

I see. I thought God had authority over religion.

Is it your contention that a duty has the same force as a law, and that a recommendation in a speech constitutes a duty? Therefore, a speech holds the same force as law?

See how I ask the question instead of stating that I can just assume this is what you're saying. It's called discussion.

I don't understand the question. May I ask for an example of what you are talking about?

 

[FredFlash]

I thought at first that maybe my communication skills were even worse than I thought them to be. But, no, I think it's your inference-ability.

Or, do I incorrectly understand that a law is different than "coersion, force, or violence"?

What's the point of civil authority making a law if those who violate it are not punished; except to fool the people, like the Texas law that prohibits racial profiling, but does not provide for the punishment of those that do.

 

[This_person]

I see. I thought God had authority over religion.



I don't understand the question. May I ask for an example of what you are talking about?

Sure, sorry. You were saying that in a couple of presidential speaches, presidents recommended that people fast and pray. You went on to ask questions that I inferred were your attempt at saying those recommendations constituted a governmental "duty" to fast and pray. Since the issue at hand is the first amendment portion which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Logically, unless you're just trying to see me dance to your questions, you must have a reason for seeing this presidental recommendation, which I inferred you calling a duty, as having a point in our discussion. So, that begs the question, do you see this duty as having the same force as a law - as in "Congress shall make no law..."?

 

[This_person]

I see. I thought God had authority over religion.

Sorry, forgot the first half of this.

My God has authority over my religion, your God has authority over yours. Everyone else's god, or lack thereof, has the authority over their religion, IAW their beliefs. Unless you're trying to tie all religion to one God, or one type of God, which I don't think is appropriate. Thus, my statement that each individual gets to choose to which God (or lack thereof)/religion they believe, practice, etc.

 

[FredFlash]

...a law is different than "coersion, force, or violence"?

Huh? I guess so. A law can be coercive, or merely recommendatory. Coercion can be legal or illegal.