Let me ask you a question: Do you honestly believe what we're seeing today is what the founding fathers had in mind with the establishment clause? I can't believe that anyone really does. They may believe it should have been what the founding fathers had in mind, but I can't imagine anyone believing that it was what they had in mind. And if it's not what the founding fathers had in mind, how can anyone say these things are unconstitutional? So before you say "next," maybe you could first engage in an intelligent discussion first. But that's the problem. Far too many people would like for us to assume that the establishment clause makes these things unconstitutional. They accept as fact that which they are obligated to prove.
Actually I meant NOT allowing days off for religious holidays. However, LBJ Day should be a national holiday. Just think of all the great things that Texan could have without the anchor of that Massachusetts President's war which he had to wage.
First off, my point was pretty simple and has been made many times. But I'll spell it out Anybody who thinks that the establishment clause, or even the most extreme, warped interpretation jurisprudence thereunder, means "no more prayer rugs in the workplace." or "No more buying Christmas trees, cards, candles" is either 1. an idiot, or 2. is disingenously building straw men to knock down. i So with that I think that statements like this: "Far too many people would like for us to assume that the establishment clause makes these things unconstitutional." are misplaced, unless there is some spate of ignorant people who believe it is unconstitutional to buy a Christmas card. If you know any please cite some for me because I know of none. And finally, no, I doubt it is what the "founding fathers" had in mind; some of them probably think it's goddamned great, like Jefferson. Some of them probably think it's not so hot. A lot of them are wondering where the hell their slaves are. Many of them are intimidated by our magic flying iron horses and are cowering in the corner right now.
Niiiiice Sam. Humorous? fairly. But factually "spelling it out"? No. You missed. However, I will continue in your vein. Whatever our Founding Father's meant, either through the establishment clause, or Sep. of Church and State, is vague, and means little. The Constitution is a living document. Its vaugeness in not spelling things out is why it still survives. It changes all the time. They're amendments. Look 'em up. Both parties are correct, to an extent. Both parties have a point. Both are passionate about it. Both need to grow up. How about a Grandfather clause? Keep what's there and don't add anything new. Just a frickin compromise on this stuff. Don't look to the constitution for answers that aren't there.
Straw man. There's absolutely nothing stopping you or anybody else from praying in school. Absolutely nothing. The only prohibition is on school-led prayer.
Its also a straw man to pick the weakest of the points to disprove, and then act like you've disproven them all. Wasn't there just a case posted about a couple of weeks ago where the Declaration of Independence itself was banned because of the overzealous pursuit of separation of church and state? That would seem to neither fit the founders intent, nor make any sense, so whether you are an activist or a strict constructionist it DOES look as if its getting out of hand. Hitherto and so on and so forth...
Surrender, if you are going to cast an insult, at least be original like SamFisher. Play on my handle. That is its purpose. Otherwise, just....surrender. There are a number of prohibitions in schools that don't make sense -- like some schools banning Christmas carols. And yet they let kids out of school for a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus, i.e. a religious holiday that has nothing to do with non-Christian or atheistic beliefs. To me, that is a non-sequitur.
There's no "points" here at all, it's just a random stream of consciousness blather from a mind that can't comprehend the difference between state sanctioned displays of religion and private exercise of religion.
Ah, Sam, how I do love elevating your blood pressure. It usually seems so low. However, you are missing the point. There are quite a number of Americans out there (blue staters in general) who are making the red states scarlet (again, in general) by pushing the envelope to the extreme in their assault on religious icons and verbiage. I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies and absurdities by taking it ALL to the extreme. Merry Christmas, btw.
Sam, you are kidding, right? Please tell me you are. Really. Otherwise you are circling the drain in one of the biggest routes ever, since The Stradivarious Conquest. Looks to me (and heck, everyone who has read this thread) like the framers wanted to keep the STATE out of religion, not vice versa. That was the intent, which makes sense given the reason why they came here in the first place. Sorry for piling on to this massacre, but I just couldn't resist.
nobody is "assaulting" the religious icons themselves, they are only wanting to keep our nation the secular-based one it always has been and should be - nothing but disaster has occured in the planet's history when religion and government have mixed what religious icon(s) have been taken out of your personal life because of the extreme actions of secularist? How has your personal ability to practice your religion been effected by the removal of any public displays of religion?
What personal freedom's have been denied the members of this board because of the Patriot Act? None. But you still here people b****ing about that. Just because no one's religios icons have been taken our of our personal lives yet doesn't mean they won't be in the future. It's a clear conspiricy by the left to eliminate religion alltogether. Even I see it and I'm an athiets.
Let me provide an example in Alabama you may have read about. Their supreme court forced the removal of the Ten Commandments because they are "religious," despite also being the cornerstone of Western law. How did mixing noble thoughts (Ten Commandments) and government constitute a "disaster?" Over in Florida, public Christmas nativity scenes in one city were outlawed, but public minoras for Hanukka were allowed. Why not both -- or neither? In California there is a suit to take a small cross out of a public seal -- but not the much larger mythological goddess. What not both -- or neither? All I am doing is point out the obvious inconsistent attacks and taking them to the extreme to show our trendy lunacy.
Oops. My girlfriend changed into her browser while I was in the other room, and I didn't notice -- at least until I tried to edit. This post was really by me, not enbehay.
But the 10 commandments are not the cornerstone of Western Law. Don't kill, and don't steal, are law, but they were law in other civilizations as well. No other god before Jehova, the covets and all that aren't even really law.
