Christmas: It's About Being with God

Nov 2008
60,678
4,451
Washington state
Those rulings are the law, and they explore the history and original intent of the Establishment Clause far more than a cherry-picked Wikipedia article. Throw in a reading of the debates in the First Congress (specifically, the House of Representatives, where Madison first introduced his original version of the Bill of Rights) and you would be able to see your position holds no weight and makes no sense.
Of course rulings are now the law, but the original intent was not to protect government from an intrusive religious take over as its coined today. Just shows what judges appointed by Presidents with political influence can do to change the intent of a law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,344
40,458
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Of course rulings are now the law...
Again, you clearly have not read any of the rulings, and so are unqualified to opine.
[T]he original intent was not to protect government from an intrusive religious take over as its coined today.
Yes, it was. That is exactly what the Establishment Clause was designed and worded to prevent. You are confusing it with the Free Exercise Clause (which also does not mean what you think).
 
Nov 2008
60,678
4,451
Washington state
Again, you clearly have not read any of the rulings, and so are unqualified to opine.

Yes, it was. That is exactly what the Establishment Clause was designed and worded to prevent. You are confusing it with the Free Exercise Clause (which also does not mean what you think).
The Establishment Clause was originally wanted by the church because there was no Bill of Rights at that time to protect religious liberty. The church did not want a National Religion pushed on them by the government. That’s a long ways off from what Secularist push today. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “The first amendment makes perfect sense now. Instead of protecting a government from religion it’s meant to protect people from a government forming a religion to oppress them so they may have free exercise. It wasn’t meant to prevent free exercise so government would not embrace a religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,344
40,458
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
The Establishment Clause was originally wanted by the church because there was no Bill of Rights at that time to protect religious liberty. The church did not want a National Religion pushed on them by the government. That’s a long ways off from what Secularist push today. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “The first amendment makes perfect sense now. Instead of protecting a government from religion it’s meant to protect people from a government forming a religion to oppress them so they may have free exercise. It wasn’t meant to prevent free exercise so government would not embrace a religion.
Keeping the government out of religion is exactly what the Establishment Clause does. You are equating it with the Free Exercise Clause, and they are not the same. Your statements above do not even make sense. One clause keeps religion out of government; the other keeps government out of religion, and both of those are necessary for real religious freedom for everyone. You do not get to use the government to represent, teach or otherwise spread your religion.
 
Likes: BigLeRoy
Nov 2008
60,678
4,451
Washington state
Keeping the government out of religion is exactly what the Establishment Clause does. You are equating it with the Free Exercise Clause, and they are not the same. Your statements above do not even make sense. One clause keeps religion out of government; the other keeps government out of religion, and both of those are necessary for real religious freedom for everyone. You do not get to use the government to represent, teach or otherwise spread your religion.
It’s impossible to use government to spread a religion that’s my point. The Separation insures religious people will not be intruded on by a Government religion . That doesn’t mean that we strip religious freedoms from people to insure Government won’t start a State religion. That has been the goal of FFRF and other Atheist organizations for awhile


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,344
40,458
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
It’s impossible to use government to spread a religion that’s my point.
Your "point" is absurd. Governments have historically done it. Governments still do it. It is illegal in the United States.
The Separation insures religious people will not be intruded on by a Government religion.
It also insures non-religious people will not be intruded upon by a government religion. And when the government promotes or favors a particular religion, belief or doctrine over others, that constitutes a government religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
 
Likes: BigLeRoy
Nov 2008
60,678
4,451
Washington state
Your "point" is absurd. Governments have historically done it. Governments still do it. It is illegal in the United States.

It also insures non-religious people will not be intruded upon by a government religion. And when the government promotes or favors a particular religion, belief or doctrine over others, that constitutes a government religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Does the Establishment Clause State anything about non religious people? Would like to see that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,344
40,458
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Does the Establishment Clause State anything about non religious people?
It does not say anything about any people in particular. It specifies what the government may not do. And that includes not forcing religion, or any aspect of it, on people in any fashion. Religious people are not special as a matter of constitutional law.
 
Nov 2008
60,678
4,451
Washington state
It does not say anything about any people in particular. It specifies what the government may not do. And that includes not forcing religion, or any aspect of it, on people in any fashion. Religious people are not special as a matter of constitutional law.
Where does the Constitution say people can’t share (force according to you) their beliefs? Is there a law that restricts our speech?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Similar Discussions