Is it legal because the government says so?

[Tassman]

Learn to read with comprehension. Then learn to respond to what people write instead of what you wished they would write. Establishment of a state religion would have to be done by the state.

It is you reading what you want to believe into the Establishment Clause and your view has been contradicted several times by the Supreme Court, which you erroneously choose to view as activist because of this.

There are two sides to the relevant section of this clause, namely that legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and neither side can impinge on the other. In short, a “wall of separation exists between the two sides, as Jefferson said.

[Jedidiah]

It is you reading what you want to believe into the Establishment Clause and your view has been contradicted several times by the Supreme Court, which you erroneously choose to view as activist because of this.

There are two sides to the relevant section of this clause, namely that legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and neither side can impinge on the other. In short, a “wall of separation exists between the two sides, as Jefferson said.

Once again you ignore what was written choosing to respond to what you would like to have read. For all of the prior history of the United States the Establishment Clause was understood just the opposite of what the liberal biased court of today decided. They did not interpret but reversed the actual meaning of the whole thing. That is why I called it activism. They simply made a new set of rules whole cloth. This is not the role of the Supreme Court. They are to defend the Constitution, not change it.

[Tassman]

Once again you ignore what was written choosing to respond to what you would like to have read. For all of the prior history of the United States the Establishment Clause was understood just the opposite of what the liberal biased court of today decided. They did not interpret but reversed the actual meaning of the whole thing. That is why I called it activism. They simply made a new set of rules whole cloth. This is not the role of the Supreme Court. They are to defend the Constitution, not change it.

Christians have acted as though they had the right to impose their values. But when challenged, e.g. by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the courts have invariably ruled against them on the basis of the Establishment Clause as interpreted by Jefferson's concept of Separation of Church and State. In short, the Supreme Court has defended the Constitution, it is the Christians who have been demanding special treatment.

[Sparko]

Because establishing "In God We Trust" as a national motto counts. Because all of the "we haven't established it but we're clearly following a single religion" is close enough to count. That's what I mean by letter of the law and not spirit of the law, and even the letter is questionable.

counts as what? what point are you trying to make? You seem to be arguing that God is still in the government and should be, yet saying the opposite.

You're crossing who you're talking to. I haven't said anything about a letter. There is a difference, however, between stating intent (which the letter is used to support) and stating beliefs (which the DoI uses).




That doesn't make it ok. Slavery was allowed by the US Government before there was a US Government, too. That's not a useful metric for anything. The point remains that what you try to pass off as a 'recent kick' has a basis. It's not just people suddenly getting uppity about things.

The point of the DOI is that the founding fathers felt that God was important enough to base an argument for human rights on. Which is the basis of rebelling and starting a new government. God was central to the forming of the US Government. They would not reject God in the constitution. They were protecting worship by making sure that the government could never force a specific religion on the people like England did. They had no intention of keeping religion out of government. They appealed to God all the time in their speeches, in congress which opened with prayer, in their letters and everyday lives. All this "no religion in government" crap IS indeed a "recent kick" invented by liberals and atheists.

[Sparko]

But that's not what happened. The Supreme Court accepted Jefferson's interpretation of the Establishment Clause as a valid interpretation...several times. It may just as easily have not accepted it as valid and disregarded the letter, but it didn't.

That is exactly what happened. They decided that Jefferson's letter was what the first amendment meant. They let a personal letter determine the meaning of a constitutional amendment.

A President's opinion on a constitutional amendment should not be the standard by which the constitution is interpreted. That would mean any President can just decided what the constitution means.

[Sparko]

The “the free exercise of religion” as per the Establishment Clause does NOT mean that religion could interfere with the state. That would make it an “established religion" and the Establishment Clause expressly forbids this.

"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."

What a moron. It says that congress cannot make a law to establish religion. It says nothing about not having religion in congress or the government. They just can't make any laws establishing a state religion. They can't create a "Church of America" or some such and make it the official national religion. That is all it says. It also can't make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The exact same wording is used for freedom of speech. It says that congress cannot pass any laws abridging the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that you can't have freedom of speech in government, does it? There isn't a "wall of separation" between free speech and government is there?

[rogue06]

That is exactly what happened. They decided that Jefferson's letter was what the first amendment meant. They let a personal letter determine the meaning of a constitutional amendment.

A President's opinion on a constitutional amendment should not be the standard by which the constitution is interpreted. That would mean any President can just decided what the constitution means.

What should matter is what the author of the amendment (Madison not Jefferson) and all those who ratified it thought it meant

[Sparko]

What should matter is what the author of the amendment (Madison not Jefferson) and all those who ratified it thought it meant

What should matter is what it says in the amendment.

[Carrikature]

counts as what? what point are you trying to make? You seem to be arguing that God is still in the government and should be, yet saying the opposite.

I'm not sure how you get "and should be" from what I've said. The point I'm making is that "under God" and "In God we trust" may not be violations in the strictest sense, but they are quite clearly violations of the intent.

The point of the DOI is that the founding fathers felt that God was important enough to base an argument for human rights on. Which is the basis of rebelling and starting a new government. God was central to the forming of the US Government. They would not reject God in the constitution. They were protecting worship by making sure that the government could never force a specific religion on the people like England did. They had no intention of keeping religion out of government. They appealed to God all the time in their speeches, in congress which opened with prayer, in their letters and everyday lives. All this "no religion in government" crap IS indeed a "recent kick" invented by liberals and atheists.

There's a significant difference between "we base our beliefs on" and "we base our legal system on". I agree that they're protecting worship, but if the intent was to keep God (Christian, mind) in the system, they still failed.

A lot of this 'intention' doesn't hold when you look at the beliefs they actually held (and the knowledge that 'deist' or 'agnostic' didn't really exist as terms, let alone something people identified as). Jefferson is the one that rewrote the gospels without all the supernatural/divinity stuff in it, after all.

[Sparko]

I'm not sure how you get "and should be" from what I've said. The point I'm making is that "under God" and "In God we trust" may not be violations in the strictest sense, but they are quite clearly violations of the intent.

No they are not. In fact they are evidence that the intent never was to keep religion out of government. That is why I was questioning what the heck you were saying. You are taking evidence that the first amendment was not walling off religion in government and claiming it proves it was.

There's a significant difference between "we base our beliefs on" and "we base our legal system on". I agree that they're protecting worship, but if the intent was to keep God (Christian, mind) in the system, they still failed.

A lot of this 'intention' doesn't hold when you look at the beliefs they actually held (and the knowledge that 'deist' or 'agnostic' didn't really exist as terms, let alone something people identified as). Jefferson is the one that rewrote the gospels without all the supernatural/divinity stuff in it, after all.

Carrot, I am pretty much done discussing this with you. You seem to be wanting to twist evidence to mean the opposite of what it means for some unknown reason.

They didn't go around saying "you know we need to keep God in the government so lets make up some mottos and stuff" - they just naturally ASSUMED God was part of their government and didn't think anything about it. They never thought "hey you know what? one day there will be a lot of atheists and liberals around trying to remove God from our government, so maybe we should make it clear that we expect God to be part of the government by writing some letters"

[Jedidiah]

The point I'm making is that "under God" and "In God we trust" may not be violations in the strictest sense, but they are quite clearly violations of the intent.

This is exactly backwards. The intent of the "establishment clause" has been revealed in all the years that have passed before the latest stupidity. Today the clause is being turned on it's head by liberals and atheists.

[Tassman]

That is exactly what happened. They decided that Jefferson's letter was what the first amendment meant. They let a personal letter determine the meaning of a constitutional amendment.

They agreed with Jefferson's explanation and interpretation of the Establishment Clause. This was their ruling on several occasions and it now stands as law.

A President's opinion on a constitutional amendment should not be the standard by which the constitution is interpreted. That would mean any President can just decided what the constitution means.

Not just "any president", one of the founding fathers who was co-responsible of much of the Constitution's drafting.

[Tassman]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The free exercise of religion is not in dispute. But your claim that “free exercise of religion” entitles Christians to interfere with the freedoms of others on the basis of their beliefs, is contrary to the intention of the Establishment Clause. To demand this “right” is to act as though an Established Church already existed, namely the Christian Church and more particularly the Evangelical Church...which gives the likes of Kim Davis the right to break the law on the basis of her religious beliefs.

[Sparko]

The free exercise of religion is not in dispute. But your claim that “free exercise of religion” entitles Christians to interfere with the freedoms of others on the basis of their beliefs, is contrary to the intention of the Establishment Clause. To demand this “right” is to act as though an Established Church already existed, namely the Christian Church and more particularly the Evangelical Church...which gives the likes of Kim Davis the right to break the law on the basis of her religious beliefs.

Tassman, you are not even American, you have no idea what this country is or our constitution. Please stick to Australian politics. Government interferes with the freedoms of others by its very existence. So do people. You cannot even exist without interfering in the lives of others unless you are a hermit living on the top of a mountain in tibet. Just being an American citizen allows you to have the freedom to interfere with others. The constitution limits how much the government can interfere with you. And lets it create laws that set the ground rules for individuals interacting with each other, and limits creating laws in other instances.

That is what the first amendment does: It LIMITS the Federal government from creating a state religion, or creating any laws that interfere with religious freedom, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. It does not give the government any powers at all. It limits their power. It does NOT limit the people's power or freedom. It insures it.

Yes, there are laws that stop a person from having their religion from harming others. Like if you religion says you have to eat children, you would be prevented from doing so because it interferes with the other person's right to live, which trumps the right to eat them. But there are NO laws or anything in the constitution that prevents religion in the government. The wall is one way. Heck, the President gets sworn in on a bible!

[Leonhard]

which gives the likes of Kim Davis the right to break the law on the basis of her religious beliefs.

In Denmark, it is considered perfectly reasonable to have moral problems with executing some aspect of your job. We don't fire government, employed doctors who refuse to recommend abortions, but they're obligated to refer to a colleague.

This is not considered a problem.