|
|
| Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments (1066509) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1066512) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon May 20 10:33:34 2013, in response to Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by AlM on Mon May 20 09:58:25 2013. Hopefully that's a fail. Separation of church and state kind of thing. |
|
|
| (1066513) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 20 10:35:54 2013, in response to Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by AlM on Mon May 20 09:58:25 2013. The answer should be "no." |
|
|
| (1066535) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 11:54:14 2013, in response to Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by AlM on Mon May 20 09:58:25 2013. It'll be good to have this settled one way or the otherWill it now? You hoping for the SCOTUS to rule against the First Amendment? |
|
|
| (1066536) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon May 20 11:55:08 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments?, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 11:54:14 2013. LOL!You know jack shit about the Constitution. |
|
|
| (1066545) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 12:27:15 2013, in response to Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by AlM on Mon May 20 09:58:25 2013. This will only increase the intensity of the debatem either way.Think either side will just give up if the SCOTUS decides against them? |
|
|
| (1066546) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 12:28:49 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by bingbong on Mon May 20 10:33:34 2013. No such legal standard. Violation of the Establishment Clause is. |
|
|
| (1066550) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 20 12:35:55 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments?, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 11:54:14 2013. You hoping for the SCOTUS to rule against the First Amendment?I'm expecting SCOTUS to interpret the 1st amendment. |
|
|
| (1066551) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 20 12:37:56 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 12:27:15 2013. Think either side will just give up if the SCOTUS decides against them?Mostly yes. What will be their choice? And if the losers don't give up, they'll be marginalized, which is good. |
|
|
| (1066555) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 12:49:28 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by AlM on Mon May 20 12:37:56 2013. I like how Roe V Wade totally ended the abortion debate and there's universal acceptance of it.Idiot. |
|
|
| (1066556) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon May 20 12:55:26 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 12:28:49 2013. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Remember that. |
|
|
| (1066557) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Mon May 20 13:05:57 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon May 20 12:55:26 2013. Notice how missy forget the second part of that clause which is of equal important "...or prohibit the free exercise there of..." |
|
|
| (1066561) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon May 20 13:18:05 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 12:28:49 2013. Ahem.It is clearly stated in the Federalist papers, which were written by the same authors - the second source for guidance WRT the Constitution, and the source for ALL decisions regarding same since 1787 - that the Establishment clause is intended to keep religion OUT of government. |
|
|
| (1066564) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 13:26:56 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon May 20 12:55:26 2013. Um, or free exercise thereof. |
|
|
| (1066565) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 13:29:19 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by bingbong on Mon May 20 13:18:05 2013. There is no mention of a "wall of separation between church and state" in the Federalist Papers, and even if there was, it's not the legal standard the SCOTUS is bound by. The Constitution is.The Establishment Clause was never meant to keep religion out of government, it was meant to keep ONE religion out of government, to the exclusion of all others. |
|
|
| (1066585) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 14:30:00 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 12:27:15 2013. No dice. It certainly will intensify. |
|
|
| (1066588) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon May 20 14:32:58 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 13:26:56 2013. Which pertains to individuals, who are free to pray privately before town meetings. I'd bet many do, especially those with assessment grievances.However, a formal group prayer, especially one focused from a particular faith/sect, has got to be banned. Government can't do that as government, it's unconstitutional. |
|
|
| (1066602) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 20 14:44:27 2013, in response to Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by AlM on Mon May 20 09:58:25 2013. Wellll ... if the court rules in favor of it, can't wait for the call to prayer here five times a day from the fire tower. :)After all ... rules is rules. |
|
|
| (1066604) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 20 14:51:54 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 12:49:28 2013. Quite different.The right to abortion in Roe v Wade was fabricated out of pieces of the Constitution that never mention abortion. This is much more clear-cut. Either a town board prayer is establishment of religion, or it's not. If it is, then the fight will move to public Christmas trees, which could go either way, but at least the basic guideline will already be set. If not, the fight will move to more intrusive displays of religion, but I doubt that the pro-religionists will ever get much further than a non-denominational prayer. |
|
|
| (1066613) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 20 15:02:34 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by bingbong on Mon May 20 14:32:58 2013. Remind me to bring a rug to the next town meeting. :) |
|
|
| (1066614) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon May 20 15:03:13 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 20 13:29:19 2013. The Establishment Clause was never meant to keep religion out of government, it was meant to keep ONE religion out of government, to the exclusion of all others.If that had been the intention, they'd have written it as such. That was actually part of a draft of the amendment, which was abandoned in favor of the current, more expansive text. And in any event, a specifically Christian prayer still violates your interpretation. |
|
|
| (1066620) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 20 15:11:49 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon May 20 15:03:13 2013. There's always this precedent from the same article:In 1983, in Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court upheld the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening its legislative sessions with an invocation from a paid Presbyterian minister, saying that such ceremonies were “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.” So I don't think we can really predict what will happen in this case. |
|
|
| (1066637) | |
Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 20 15:44:08 2013, in response to Re: Maybe this will cut down on the religious arguments, posted by AlM on Mon May 20 15:11:49 2013. If it goes the way our republican friends want, then I'm sure they won't mind this banner in their town hall either:"There is only one god, Allah (PBUH) and Mohamed (sic) is his prophet" After all ... rules is rules. |
|
|