Agree With the Administration or Else!

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because any attempt to do so would have been met with extreme opposition and bleating about the "rampant multiculturalism destroying America." I would have been just as adamant about the statue removal had it been of Buddha or any other religion, because of the manner and location in which it was placed.

You don't see, or choose to forget, that the lack of religeon is, itself, a religeon.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because any attempt to do so would have been met with extreme opposition and bleating about the "rampant multiculturalism destroying America." I would have been just as adamant about the statue removal had it been of Buddha or any other religion, because of the manner and location in which it was placed.

You don't see, or choose to forget, that the lack of religeon is, itself, a religeon.

How so?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because any attempt to do so would have been met with extreme opposition and bleating about the "rampant multiculturalism destroying America." I would have been just as adamant about the statue removal had it been of Buddha or any other religion, because of the manner and location in which it was placed.

You don't see, or choose to forget, that the lack of religeon [sic] is, itself, a religeon [sic].

How does faith come into the picture in the lack of religion?

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, separation of church and state you monkeys. Live it, learn it.

And Crimson, is there ONE single thread where you don't show up and bash libs even though they have nothing to do with the topic at-hand? Of course not. You're like an idiot-savant Rush Limbaugh or something...

yeah I don't know what's up with Crimson, I don't think he ever heard about that whole separation of church and state concept.

Please quote from the constitution where it discusses separate of church and state.

It's not in the constitution, but neither is judicial review, or so many other things which the courts thru thousands of decisions have found to be guaranteed most notably Everson v. Board of Education. Also see 'The Lemon Test', 'The Coercion Test', and 'The Endorsment Test'.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, separation of church and state you monkeys. Live it, learn it.

And Crimson, is there ONE single thread where you don't show up and bash libs even though they have nothing to do with the topic at-hand? Of course not. You're like an idiot-savant Rush Limbaugh or something...

yeah I don't know what's up with Crimson, I don't think he ever heard about that whole separation of church and state concept.

Please quote from the constitution where it discusses separate of church and state.

Ask this man:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson

BTW, if it were passages from the Koran engraved into the hallways of some government buildings, or perhaps if the US Dollar said "Allah Akbar" instead of "In God We Trust": would you still be complaining about separation of church and state?

One more thing, I find it ironic a person who defends the 10 commandments has a signature that reads "If I were given a gun, with only one bullet, and given the opportunity to shoot once without fear of consequence.. my trouble would be not in choosing whom to shoot, but rather how to line them all up to get them all with one bullet.". Shame shame shame! Intent on violating the most sacred commandment.

 

[dbk]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, separation of church and state you monkeys. Live it, learn it.

And Crimson, is there ONE single thread where you don't show up and bash libs even though they have nothing to do with the topic at-hand? Of course not. You're like an idiot-savant Rush Limbaugh or something...

yeah I don't know what's up with Crimson, I don't think he ever heard about that whole separation of church and state concept.

Please quote from the constitution where it discusses separate of church and state.

Are you actually denying this concept of separation of church and state within our government? :shocked:

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: bykim5

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, separation of church and state you monkeys. Live it, learn it.

And Crimson, is there ONE single thread where you don't show up and bash libs even though they have nothing to do with the topic at-hand? Of course not. You're like an idiot-savant Rush Limbaugh or something...

yeah I don't know what's up with Crimson, I don't think he ever heard about that whole separation of church and state concept.

Please quote from the constitution where it discusses separate of church and state.

Are you actually denying this concept of separation of church and state within our government? :shocked:

No, he's denying "seperation of church and state" is the exact wording in the constitution. He's playing semantics to benefit what he believes. The entire point of freedom of religion is the government does not endorse any religion. I bet he agrees as long as the government endorses *his* religion.

 

[conjur]

God Bless America!


And nobody else!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: bykim5

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, separation of church and state you monkeys. Live it, learn it.

And Crimson, is there ONE single thread where you don't show up and bash libs even though they have nothing to do with the topic at-hand? Of course not. You're like an idiot-savant Rush Limbaugh or something...

yeah I don't know what's up with Crimson, I don't think he ever heard about that whole separation of church and state concept.

Please quote from the constitution where it discusses separate of church and state.

Are you actually denying this concept of separation of church and state within our government? :shocked:

No, he's denying "seperation of church and state" is the exact wording in the constitution. He's playing semantics to benefit what he believes. The entire point of freedom of religion is the government does not endorse any religion. I bet he agrees as long as the government endorses *his* religion.

Stop playa hatin' on Jesus . . .

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think its already been pretty clearly established there is no freedom of speech as school... Besides, you guys are only outraged when its liberal speech thats not protected. If these clubs were reading the 10 commandments you would be demanding these teachers be fired.

Last I heard there wasn't a 'seperation of politics and state' but a 'seperation of church and state. Nice try though.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because any attempt to do so would have been met with extreme opposition and bleating about the "rampant multiculturalism destroying America." I would have been just as adamant about the statue removal had it been of Buddha or any other religion, because of the manner and location in which it was placed.

You don't see, or choose to forget, that the lack of religeon [sic] is, itself, a religeon [sic].

How does faith come into the picture in the lack of religion?

It doesn't. You're just mentally masturbating to say that an absence of faith is just another kind of faith.

 

[Harvey]

Agree With the Administration or Else!

I'll take "or else" for a thousand, Alex... And the sooner, the better. :disgust:

 

[Zephyr106]

"The girl's mother, also a teacher, was ordered by the principal to destroy the child's poetry."

Zephyr

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because any attempt to do so would have been met with extreme opposition and bleating about the "rampant multiculturalism destroying America." I would have been just as adamant about the statue removal had it been of Buddha or any other religion, because of the manner and location in which it was placed.

You don't see, or choose to forget, that the lack of religeon is, itself, a religeon.

LOL @ HOP

That one was pretty funny, you got anymore?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because any attempt to do so would have been met with extreme opposition and bleating about the "rampant multiculturalism destroying America." I would have been just as adamant about the statue removal had it been of Buddha or any other religion, because of the manner and location in which it was placed.

You don't see, or choose to forget, that the lack of religeon is, itself, a religeon.

LOL @ HOP

That one was pretty funny, you got anymore?

The empty glass is in fact, quite full of water.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
"The girl's mother, also a teacher, was ordered by the principal to destroy the child's poetry."

Zephyr

What? I'd like to see more information on this.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: bykim5

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, separation of church and state you monkeys. Live it, learn it.

And Crimson, is there ONE single thread where you don't show up and bash libs even though they have nothing to do with the topic at-hand? Of course not. You're like an idiot-savant Rush Limbaugh or something...

yeah I don't know what's up with Crimson, I don't think he ever heard about that whole separation of church and state concept.

Please quote from the constitution where it discusses separate of church and state.

Are you actually denying this concept of separation of church and state within our government? :shocked:

Yes.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: IndieSnob

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think its already been pretty clearly established there is no freedom of speech as school... Besides, you guys are only outraged when its liberal speech thats not protected. If these clubs were reading the 10 commandments you would be demanding these teachers be fired.

Last I heard there wasn't a 'seperation of politics and state' but a 'seperation of church and state. Nice try though.

Again, please quote the part of the constitution which says separate of church and state.. it doesn't exist.. nice try though!

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: The Framers of the Constitution of The United States
Article (I.)
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.

As for what constitutes an "establishment"

es·tab·lish·ment, n.

1.
a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.


You're correct, Crimson, the phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution, but the meaning does. The phrase in question happens to be Thomas Jefferson's own paraphrasing of the language in the First Amendment in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802...

Originally posted by: Thomas Jefferson
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

...Though somehow I'm certain you'll bleat on regardless. :roll:

 

[Format C:]

Translation:

The Federal Government shall not promote or endorse by law any specific religion.

AND just as important...

The Federal Government shall not discourage or inhibit by law any expression of religion.

The wall of seperation Jefferson speaks of is not a Federal guarantee that one will not be subjected to expressions of religion in public but rather just the opposite. The government cannot mandate which religion you subsribe to, if any, nor will it protect you from anyone else's exercise and expression of theirs. One is guaranteed the right and granted the freedom to choose and express their religion free of the intrusion of The State, but the corollary to that right is one's tolerance and acceptance of other's choices and expressions thereof. One has the right to choose to not subscribe to a religion at all nor to partake of any expressions of faith, but they do not have the right to be free from or intolerant of others ability to freely do so. In other words, as many have said, its freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Format C:
Translation:

The Federal Government shall not promote or endorse by law any specific religion.

AND just as important...

The Federal Government shall not discourage or inhibit by law any expression of religion.

The wall of seperation Jefferson speaks of is not a Federal guarantee that one will not be subjected to expressions of religion in public but rather just the opposite. The government cannot mandate which religion you subsribe to, if any, nor will it protect you from anyone else's exercise and expression of theirs. One is guaranteed the right and granted the freedom to choose and express their religion free of the intrusion of The State, but the corollary to that right is one's tolerance and acceptance of other's choices and expressions thereof. One has the right to choose to not subscribe to a religion at all nor to partake of any expressions of faith, but they do not have the right to be free from or intolerant of others ability to freely do so. In other words, as many have said, its freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Not quite. It is both Freedom Of and Freedom From. The difference really is in what "From" is. Certainly people are Free to express their Beliefs, no one is Free From that. OTOH, no one can be forced Religion on them, this is where Freedom From comes in. Since this arguement centers around expressions of Religion in "Public"(re: Government Institutions rather than outside ones' home), Free Expression in such places goes beyond expression of an Individual and gains the weight of Government acceptance/promotion.

 

[chess9]

Czar:

That was going to be my exact point. Format C: got it basically right until he went too far. The dangers of being on a "roll" are enormous.

-Robert

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Format C:
Translation:

The Federal Government shall not promote or endorse by law any specific religion.

AND just as important...

The Federal Government shall not discourage or inhibit by law any expression of religion.

The wall of seperation Jefferson speaks of is not a Federal guarantee that one will not be subjected to expressions of religion in public but rather just the opposite. The government cannot mandate which religion you subsribe to, if any, nor will it protect you from anyone else's exercise and expression of theirs. One is guaranteed the right and granted the freedom to choose and express their religion free of the intrusion of The State, but the corollary to that right is one's tolerance and acceptance of other's choices and expressions thereof. One has the right to choose to not subscribe to a religion at all nor to partake of any expressions of faith, but they do not have the right to be free from or intolerant of others ability to freely do so. In other words, as many have said, its freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Not quite. It is both Freedom Of and Freedom From. The difference really is in what "From" is. Certainly people are Free to express their Beliefs, no one is Free From that. OTOH, no one can be forced Religion on them, this is where Freedom From comes in. Since this arguement centers around expressions of Religion in "Public"(re: Government Institutions rather than outside ones' home), Free Expression in such places goes beyond expression of an Individual and gains the weight of Government acceptance/promotion.

I disagree. A government expressly prohibited from restricting a right granted to its citizens cannot then engage in restricting the time, the place, or the manner in which that right is expressed.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Format C:
Translation:

The Federal Government shall not promote or endorse by law any specific religion.

AND just as important...

The Federal Government shall not discourage or inhibit by law any expression of religion.

The wall of seperation Jefferson speaks of is not a Federal guarantee that one will not be subjected to expressions of religion in public but rather just the opposite. The government cannot mandate which religion you subsribe to, if any, nor will it protect you from anyone else's exercise and expression of theirs. One is guaranteed the right and granted the freedom to choose and express their religion free of the intrusion of The State, but the corollary to that right is one's tolerance and acceptance of other's choices and expressions thereof. One has the right to choose to not subscribe to a religion at all nor to partake of any expressions of faith, but they do not have the right to be free from or intolerant of others ability to freely do so. In other words, as many have said, its freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Not quite. It is both Freedom Of and Freedom From. The difference really is in what "From" is. Certainly people are Free to express their Beliefs, no one is Free From that. OTOH, no one can be forced Religion on them, this is where Freedom From comes in. Since this arguement centers around expressions of Religion in "Public"(re: Government Institutions rather than outside ones' home), Free Expression in such places goes beyond expression of an Individual and gains the weight of Government acceptance/promotion.

I disagree. A government expressly prohibited from restricting a right granted to its citizens cannot then engage in restricting the time, the place, or the manner in which that right is expressed.

As long as it's not done within the confines of a government entity. The government cannot be party to the supporting of one religion over another. You can practice your religion in your home, in your car, in a private school, or while swinging from a tree. You just cannot practice it in a courthouse, public school, etc.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I can see not using school equipment and whatnot for the poetry club, but telling the mother to destroy the poetry and trying to ruin the career of the teacher is pretty damn outlandish. People must be too busy arguing about seperation of church and state to give a goddamn about what happened.