What case? I'm not seeing a link.
My bad, I just mentioned the case, didn't link anything. The case was Everson V. Board of Education. The text I quoted you in my last post was a direct quote.
Here's the Wikipedia page on the case itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
Oh, never mind, I found it. And this case really has nothing to do with what you are putting forward here. The court ruled against the plaintiff. And it had nothing to do with the word "God".
They did rule against the plaintiff, but in doing so, and even more importantly, they clarified and set judicial precedent stating that the establishment clause does indeed call for a "separation of church and state". I thought that was the nature of the disagreement between you and I.. not the meaning of the word "God". You said that the constitution doesn't call for such a separation. I was just showing you supreme court precedent that it does.
We're talking about church and state. It took you all of 2 sentences to go off on an Obama tangent. Is that your only frame of reference for the world now.. how much you hate this man? Are you even capable of having a discussion that doesn't involve him?
I feel sorry for people who base their arguments on insinuations...My reference to Obama was brought about by his insistence that ALL religious symbols be covered from public view at RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS that he was speaking at! Only TWO LINES actually mention Obama (indirectly), yet you TRY to make it seem as though the ENTIRE article was dedicated to my "hatred" for the SOB! Of the 106 words and 1 image, only the initials "BO" and the picture were used to positively identify Barack Obama. The one metaphor in the article (Mocha Messiah) was the only other reference to the MrF*kr........If it hurts your feelings that someone calls your favorite spade a SPADE...you're being too sensitive!
And I was talking about the "state of the church"...Notre Dame should be ashamed for undermining core values of the Catholic faith (abortion/covering symbols) to appease a FAKE Christian who INSISTS on being ADMIRED.
Are you even capable of having a discussion that doesn't involve him?
The subject of "symbols"..."Atheism"..."Notre Dame"...and the "Messianic" eccentricities of the Usurper-in-Chief were a perfect match! It's strange that yours is the ONLY post complaining about it...
A group of New York City atheists is demanding that the city remove a street sign honoring seven firefighters killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks because they said the sign violates the separation of church and state.
The street, “Seven in Heaven Way,” was officially dedicated last weekend in Brooklyn outside the firehouse where the firefighters once served. The ceremony was attended by dozens of firefighters, city leaders and widows of the fallen men.
“There should be no signage or displays of religious nature in the public domain,” said Ken Bronstein, president of New York City Atheists. “It’s really insulting to us.”
Bronstein told Fox News Radio that his organization was especially concerned with the use of the word “heaven.” .....BOO F'N HOO.......
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Well, Guess what!!!!...THEY'RE "REALLY INSULTING" TO 9/11 WIDOWS!
Unfortunately, larger and bolder font does not the truth make.
Actually It does.
Quote:
If you have a reason or argument as to why it's not valid, I'm all ears. The reality is, it's a pefectly valid argument, as the Supreme Court found in Everson V. Board of Education in 1947 that it's unconstitutional for the government to favor any religion over no religion.
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) was a landmark decision of the
United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's
Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law.
Your argument is completely different. Yours deals with the wording of "under GOD" &
only "Under GOD"and makes NO ATTEMPT TO INVOKE ANY CLAUSES therefore
Everson v. BoE is irrelevant to your argument.
The mere mention of "GOD" constituting a Church
presence that MUST be separated... is STILL not valid.
Flaming Tards that are OFFENDED by the merely mentioning the word "GOD" for fear of
burning their ear holes must instead prove a medical condition and damages
requiring a doctor's attention. Can you do that?
DAMN. You are still wrong.
JUDGE BANS RELIGIOUS WORDS FROM GRADUATION CEREMONY
A federal judge has ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including “prayer” and “amen.”
The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.
Also among the banned words or phrases from the graduation program are: “join in prayer", “bow their heads", “invocation” and “benediction” .
His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s] name we pray.” Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott called the ruling unconstitutional and a blatant attack from those who do not believe in God.
“Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country today,” Abbott said, outraged over “attempts by atheists and agnostics to use courts to eliminate from the public landscape any and all references to God whatsoever.” “I’ve never seen such a restriction on speech issued by a court or the government,” Abbott said. “It seems like a trampling of the First Amendment rather than protecting the First Amendment.” “This is the challenge we are dealing with here,” he said. “(It’s) an ongoing attempt to purge God from the public setting while at the same time demanding from the courts an increased yielding to all things atheist and agnostic.”
The judge did grant students permission to make the sign of the cross, wear religious garb, or kneel to face Mecca....(WTF is that about? ISLAM has rights over Christianity??? BS!) But that’s not good enough for some students at the high school. “It’s just a big surprise that one kid can come in and change what’s been a tradition since Medina Valley started,” student Abigail Russell told KABB-TV. Fellow student Alicia Jade Geurin agreed...
“At graduation, I would love to be able to speak from my heart,” she told the television station. “But in this situation I feel my freedom of speech and my First Amendment is being infringed upon if I can’t say what I feel.”
You're now the 2nd person to claim that Church and God are different things, as if that's pertinent. The very idea of "God" is by nature a construct of religious belief. The supreme court has affirmed this concept by way of it's rulings on references to God in official government capacities more than once.
Also.. our government was designed the way it was specifically to avoid majority rule. Here's a quick explanation of the concept.
I agree that the constitution was written so that no matter what, the majority could not over run the minority, but within the constitution everything is done by a majority. How many senators do you need to vote for a law to pass? Is that not a "majority" as long as the law is within the constitutional boundaries? In order to overturn the unconstitutional Obamacare, how many in the house and senate need to vote in favor of the overturning of it? Wonder how it got passed in the first place......the Majority! Majority rules in this country however you want to look at it. If it helps you to think that majority doesn't rule, power to you, but to the rest of us it looks pretty black and white.
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) was a landmark decision of the
United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's
Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law.
Your argument is completely different. Yours deals with the wording of "under GOD" &
only "Under GOD"and makes NO ATTEMPT TO INVOKE ANY CLAUSES therefore
Everson v. BoE is irrelevant to your argument.
The mere mention of "GOD" constituting a Church
presence that MUST be separated... is STILL not valid.
Flaming Tards that are OFFENDED by the merely mentioning the word "GOD" for fear of
burning their ear holes must instead prove a medical condition and damages
requiring a doctor's attention. Can you do that?
DAMN. You are still wrong.
IT IS PERFECTLY VALID
Although admittedly, in the course of trying to present arguments to 3 different people I cited the wrong precedent to the wrong person. My mistake. The supreme court precedent that underscores my establishment clause argument is called the endorsement test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsement_test
Quote:The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition...[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion.
The concept of "God" is a construct of religious belief... yes or no?
I agree that the constitution was written so that no matter what, the majority could not over run the minority, but within the constitution everything is done by a majority. How many senators do you need to vote for a law to pass? Is that not a "majority" as long as the law is within the constitutional boundaries? In order to overturn the unconstitutional Obamacare, how many in the house and senate need to vote in favor of the overturning of it? Wonder how it got passed in the first place......the Majority! Majority rules in this country however you want to look at it. If it helps you to think that majority doesn't rule, power to you, but to the rest of us it looks pretty black and white.
I never said the concept of a majority is alien our government's operations. Everyone knows that majority votes are used in many procedures. I said we don't have a majority-rules system. This is more than a semantic distinction.
Let me make another point here. Several of you seem to be throwing around the "how dare you oversensitive assholes get offended by my religion" thing. You do realize that's not the issue most people have with the violation of the establishment clause, right? Do you think exposure to fantasy is intolerable? Those of us who refuse to believe in things without a good reason to have to deal with religious propaganda every day. The problem is not that we can't handle it. The problem is that our government, per it's constitution, should be separated from religion. End of story. The only reason you're taking the approach you are here is because we're talking about the Christian institution's violation of the clause, put in place by Christian men. I guarantee, if someone was trying to add an Islamic expression of faith to our currency, you would all be in meltdown mode over it. There are good reasons that our founders designed a secular government. You just don't seem willing to acknowledge those reasons when it's your own religion is in violation.
Let me help you guys out here.. Instead of reacting to discussions like this in the manner of South Park citizens upset about their jobs being taken away, take a look at justice Scalia's dissent in a case using the endorsement test.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432023/posts
If you have time to read it, it's basically your side of this argument. Of course I entirely disagree with him, and am quite glad it was the dissent and not the majority.
They did rule against the plaintiff, but in doing so, and even more importantly, they clarified and set judicial precedent stating that the establishment clause does indeed call for a "separation of church and state". I thought that was the nature of the disagreement between you and I.. not the meaning of the word "God". You said that the constitution doesn't call for such a separation. I was just showing you supreme court precedent that it does.
And, you will notice that this decision was made way after the founding father's were dead, buried, and almost forgotten. Funny how this keeps happening after the turn of the 20th century.
What I don't understand is how they get to all these "inferred" conclusions from the tiny Establishment clause. What I see is that is plainly states that the government cannot make laws against religion. That is clear. Where does it say anything about ideas (religious or otherwise) not being present in government?
And, you will notice that this decision was made way after the founding father's were dead, buried, and almost forgotten. Funny how this keeps happening after the turn of the 20th century.
What I don't understand is how they get to all these "inferred" conclusions from the tiny Establishment clause. What I see is that is plainly states that the government cannot make laws against religion. That is clear. Where does it say anything about ideas (religious or otherwise) not being present in government?
The government made a law that forbids poligamy, so the Mormons had to stop practicing it. The government does whatever we allow it to, and over time we have allowed far to much.
I never said the concept of a majority is alien our government's operations. Everyone knows that majority votes are used in many procedures. I said we don't have a majority-rules system. This is more than a semantic distinction.
Majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including the legislatures of democratic nations. Some scholars have recommended against the use of majority rule, at least under certain circumstances, due to an ostensible trade-off between the benefits of majority rule and other values important to a democratic society. Most famously, it has been argued that majority rule might lead to a "tyranny of the majority", and the use of supermajoritarian rules and constitutional limits on government power have been recommended to mitigate these effects. Recently some voting theorists have argued that majority rule is the rule that best protects minorities.
It sounds to me like the definition of it sums up what you need to know to understand that we are a majority rules system, as long as it is within the constitutional limits. Pretty cut and dry.
Majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including the legislatures of democratic nations. Some scholars have recommended against the use of majority rule, at least under certain circumstances, due to an ostensible trade-off between the benefits of majority rule and other values important to a democratic society. Most famously, it has been argued that majority rule might lead to a "tyranny of the majority", and the use of supermajoritarian rules and constitutional limits on government power have been recommended to mitigate these effects. Recently some voting theorists have argued that majority rule is the rule that best protects minorities.
It sounds to me like the definition of it sums up what you need to know to understand that we are a majority rules system, as long as it is within the constitutional limits. Pretty cut and dry.
I really don't know how to make this any clearer. An actual majority-rules governing system is a primitive thing that lends itself to abuse of the minority. We do not have a majority-rules system. We have a democratic republic that uses majorities as part of it's decision making process. I'm really not sure why you're pushing this rather moot point so hard. Are you unwilling to be wrong about something?
I heard that roughly 92% of Americans are religious...............
if so, why do 8% of the population get THEIR way (in terms of removing signs or whatever that are religion affiliate and "insulting" to those 8%)? thats a huge majority (92%) if you ask me!
Around 90% of Americans polled say they believe in "God". Are you of all people really trying to tell us that you dont' understand why it's important to keep religion out of government? You, who constantly tries to convince everyone that muslims are taking over our country... you of all people can't grasp the importance of separation of church and state? It's not about what the religious vews of the minority or majority are. It's about a nation that represents all beliefs, and favors none. This is really basic, like ... 7th grade stuff guys.
