Mailbag: Freedom From Religion?
Subject: just an opinion
I guess I have the most trouble with your position because it seems, in the practical applications of your views, more often than not, your belief that people should be free from religion infringes on the rights of those who want to freely express their religion. It’s not an equitable world, and it seems that greater preference is given to the most vocal minority than the established majority. I’ve too often seen decisions made based on presumed offence rather than sound Constitutional law. There are inequities on every side, not just your position.
Actually, my position shouldn't have any effect on the private expression of religious beliefs. My position only causes problems for those who want to use the power of the state to aid and support the expression of religious beliefs. There are two important things to keep in mind about that. First, the Constitution doesn't give anyone the right to have the government support the expression of their religious beliefs. Second, the reason this is so is because our government doesn't have the authority to pick out religious beliefs to endorse or promote.
A person who wants to put the Ten Commandments on the front lawn can do so, but they can't have the government do it in public building. A person who wants to hang a crucifix on their wall or in their car can do so, but they can't have the government put on in every public school classroom. A person who wants to go around giving speeches on why Islam is the best religion can do so, but they can't expect any government officials to do the same thing while acting as a representative of the state.
I’m sorry that you choose to live without the exquisite joy that relationship with the Living God brings. But the Bible gives you an undisputed right not to believe and to live with the consequences of that choice.
In reality, my right to life without theism or religion is a product of the society we live in and the laws we live under - even if Christians still believed (as many once did) that there was no right to believe an error, that wouldn't change the secular nature of the American government.
I’m interested in knowing more about why being an atheist is the only option for you based on what you know. I’ve reviewed a ton of information on atheism and decided it’s not the right choice for me.
The problem that Elisabeth has here is in thinking that atheism is some sort of "choice" - like picking out the best car or the most nutritious soup. Atheism is "the only option" for me because, given what I know, it simply isn't possible for me to start believing in any gods. For that, I would have to have good reasons for belief and right now I don't. Elisabeth presumably thinks she does, although she wouldn't share them with me and explain how or why they qualify as good reasons. Perhaps I am wrong and she was right - but I'll never know, and that puts her above statement about being sorry that I live without belief in her god in a new light.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
The only people using the power of the state to tyrannize others is the Atheists. Who appointed you the Soviet Kommisar of other people? What business is it of yours what monuments people put up in their town? There is no law allowing you to do this. Only corrupt lawyers and activist courts have fostered this tyrranizing.
The truth is our nation was founded on Biblical principles. I’ve been reading Locke again, who you cited once, tho it was obvious you had never read him. Our Declaration of Independence was written with Lockian principles. And these were Biblical Principles. The Declaration claims that we are endowed by Our Creator with certain inalienable rights. It also referrences nature and Nature’s God. But if you read the chapter in Locke’s Second Treatise “On Natural Law” it is obvious that “Nature’s God” was the God of the Bible.
If this nation cannot acknowledge that God gave us certain inalienable rights, a critical American principle, then all we have are the rights that Big Brother deems to give us. And those, sooner or later (usually sooner) are bupkiss.
You said once that you wanted to see a prominent atheist politician in the news fighting for secularist priciples. There has been one, Austin. His name is Kim Jong-il. And if you get your way, our country will become like his.
I forgot to mention the teacher at Cuppertino, California who was just teaching about the Declaration of Independence. Just for teaching what it said, that God gives us certain inalienable rights, Atheist Kommisars filed one of their ridiculous and frivolous lawsuits. So much for the Left’s belief in “Academic Freedom.” Much less freedom of speech or freedom of religion, two concepts the Left opposes, but dont hesitate to use if they can use against us.
The only people using the power of the state to tyrannize others is the Atheists.
Yeah, cause people can’t get science or a comprehensive sex education, or are afraid to come out of the closet, or practice their religions or lack thereof because of the mean old ATHEISTS.
Disregarded due to dumbness.
Please cite examples of atheists in America using the power of the state to tyrannize others.
It’s everyone’s business if the town abuses it’s power to promote some religion.
Funny how the Bible isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, the legal foundation for American government.
Government is based upon the will of the people, not the will of some alleged god or the alleged representative of some alleged god.
You seem to have “forgotten” a lot about this case, like the fact that the teacher Stephen Williams was not “just” teaching what the Declaration of Independence said. On the contrary, he was using it as part of a larger text created in order to proselytize to his students. Many parents complained over an extended period of time and I doubt that they were all atheists — Christians have very good reasons to object when a public school teacher, an employee of the state, abuses his position to present his own personal views about Jesus and God.
You also “forgot” that Stephen Williams is the one who filed a ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit, not “Atheist Kommisars.” The school administrators recognized that they couldn’t have a teacher who thought he was a preacher, so they stopped him from evangelizing. He sued and he lost badly. Then he resigned.
I’m left wonder if the things you say are universally based upon such consistent and massive errors or fact.
Disregarded Due to Dumbness wrote:
“Yeah, cause people can’t get science”
you lack knowledge of history
Christianity never opposed science. 1000 years ago, the most advanced nation o Earth was what you would call a Christian theocracy. The so-called Byzantine Empire. In the Empire, Jesus was held to be King and the Emperor merely His Regent on Earth. Their advanced science saved them from a numerically superior Arab enemy in the sieges of Constantinople, their capital, in 675 AD and 717 AD.
The most advanced nation of the 17th century was the Netherlands, whose people you would call right wing religious extremists.
And who won the 20th century’s techology race, Secularist USSR or Christian USA?
“or a comprehensive sex education,”
Umm, I don’t need to spend my tax money to teach you how to put a condom on a cucumber
“or are afraid to come out of the closet,”
I’ll be there to help anyone who wants to do that
“or practice their religions or lack thereof because of the mean old ATHEISTS.”
yes, Atheists are stifling religious freedom in America Big time
“Disregarded due to dumbness. ”
Matt Dedinas
Secular USA.
Prove it.
Oh, Christians are big fans of science nowadays. That’s why they censor NASA science and try to get Intelligent Design in schools.
Your comment on sex education was just ignorant. Your Christian sex education that I’m paying for is telling people that condoms are ineffective, the women must submit to men and that masturbation leads to drug abuse and oppression. So, with their knowledge messed up but their hormones intact, surprise- they go and catch diseases that could be prevented with a condom, or get pregant with an unwanted child.
Of course, how foolish of me- Christians are the ones who love science, not the medical community or other actual scientists.
>
We are replete with them. You deny people the right to pray, denying both free speech and freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution in order to impose your non-existent Bolshevik Separation of Church and State. You deny a community the freedom to put up monuments they desire by filing frivolous lawsuits with our corrupt court system. There was a case of a woman who wore a cross to school where she taught and the Komissars like you tried to deny her freedom of expression. You deny coaches the right to voluntarily pray with their team. You dey the freedom of speech and religion of valedictorians who wish to thank Jesus for His help. The list goes on and on.
>
The abuse is you appointing yourself a Soviet Komissar and tyrannizing a community into removing its mouments, which violates their freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
>
Heh, neither is Separation of Church and State, but you don’t hesitate to impose that on people.
As I stated, the Declaration of Independence was written by Lockian principles, which are Biblically based. The Constitution was the means by which we are to secure the freedoms claimed in the Declaration of Independence. The Preamble of the Constitution says that it is written to “Secure the Blessings of Liberty.” While it may be otherwise today, in 1787 the term “Blessing” meant nothing other than a gift from God. So the Constitution does acknowledge that our freedom is God Given, as does the Declaration of Independence.
>
Locke discusses this a lot. Yes, based on the will of the people WHO ARE MADE FREE BY GOD. “We are endowed by Our Creator with certain inalienable rights.” It’s in the Declaration of Idependence. Look it up.
What’s more, if you respect the will of the people, as you claim, then you will stop trying to tell a community what monuments they can and can’t put up. In all these cases you guys are very much in the minority. But, like the leaders of the USSR, you don’t care what the people want, only what you want.
>
That is an outright lie. He merely taught the truth. He did not proselytize to anyone. He did not have many complainers, just the small minority of usual atheist whiners. He presented the truth about the Declaration of Idependence. He lost because the California court system is packed with corrupt Liberal judges who do not care about the US Constitution, but rule according to the dictates of World Socialism.
>
Hah! I can back up everything I say with fact. You are the one who could write for Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.
“And who won the 20th century’s techology race, Secularist USSR or Christian USA?
Secular USA. ”
Oh no, the USA was ever Secularist, but even if we accept your Orwellian revisionist history that America was Christianized during the McCarthy Era, fact is, it was Christiaized for the duration of the Cold War.
Yes Karly, you are extremely foolish. Intelligent Design is a scientific theory proposed by real scietists, some of them Nobel Prize winners. It is your side that filed the frivolous lawsuit denying the freedom of expression of these ideas. Science is supposed to be about human curiousity ad exploring all theories to find the facts. Your side does not live by that priciple it supposedly embraces.
And if you think condoms are 100% effective, I got a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Examples, please.
Where do local governments have a constitutionally guaranteed right to put religious monuments?
Please support this accusation.
The right to a fair trial and the separation of powers aren’t phrases that appear in the Constitution. I gather you deny that one is a constitutionally guaranteed right and that the other is a basic principle of American government?
Irrelevant, since the Constitution is the basis for the government. If the authors of the Constitution thought that the government should be Christian or biblical, they’d have incorporated some expression of that in the document.
Prove it.
The Constitution doesn’t say this.
The Constitution explicitly denies local majorities from doing certain things.
I can’t tell what you are referring to, but everything I said about the case included links with detailed background information. Everythign I wrote was correct: he sought to proselytize by using carefully selected excerpts political and legal documents, including the Declaration of Independence.
Prove it.
Prove it.
I note you don’t admit to having “forgotten” that the lawsuit was filed by him, not by others.
Then why don’t you? You make lots of claims and even more insults, but I’ve pointed out specific errors you have made and I have offered specific arguments.
I didn’t say “secularist,” I said “secular.” American government was secular as was, perhaps more importantly, the science which produced the technology in question.
How many of them are involved in the biological sciences?
Which characteristics of “scientific theory” are fulfilled by Intelligent Design and how?
I never said condoms were 100% effective. Don’t put words into my mouth. Ab-edders like the ones that weaseled into my school, however, portray condoms as seives that fail 50% of the time at best, which is not the case.
And “Intelligent Design” is a joke. Scientists know it, the courts know it, even its proponents know it. The only person that doesn’t is you.
How come you people are so insecure in your faith that you have to have the government’s stamp of approval, and you see a neutral stance as a threat? You’re the folks I call “religious socialists”, since you want the government to handle religion for you.
I may be foolish only in the respect that I thought I could teach a pig to sing.
“You deny people the right to pray, denying both free speech and freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution…
Examples, please.”
People are forbidden to pray in school, valedictorians are forbidden to mention Jesus, communities are forbidden to post the Ten Commandments, even though they are the basis for our laws.
“You deny a community the freedom to put up monuments they desire by filing frivolous lawsuits with our corrupt court system.
Where do local governments have a constitutionally guaranteed right to put religious monuments?”
By the Establishment Clause, which says “Congress Shall make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion” (emphasis mine). The Federal Government is expressly forbidden from involving itself in the affairs of states and localities for or against.
“The abuse is you appointing yourself a Soviet Komissar and tyrannizing a community into removing its mouments, which violates their freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Please support this accusation.”
Well, Soviet Komissars purged politically incorrect thought from whatever segment of the body politic they were in charge of. Atheist activists, the ACLU and the Southern Bolshevik Law Center are trying to purge politcally incorrect thought, such as religious thought, from the body politic.
“Heh, neither is Separation of Church and State, but you don’t hesitate to impose that on people.
The right to a fair trial and the separation of powers aren’t phrases that appear in the Constitution. I gather you deny that one is a constitutionally guaranteed right and that the other is a basic principle of American government?”
Actually, the VI Amendment can be paraphrased as “fair trial.” The powers of the branches of government are enumerated, thus separating their powers, so such a phrase is not out of line to use. Separation of Church and State appears nowhere and nothing in the Constitution even remotely hints at it. This was an usurpation imposed on us by FDR’s activist judges.
“As I stated, the Declaration of Independence was written by Lockian principles, which are Biblically based.
Irrelevant, since the Constitution is the basis for the government. If the authors of the Constitution thought that the government should be Christian or biblical, they’d have incorporated some expression of that in the document.”
Not at all irrelevant. The Constitution was our way of preserving the rights we claimed in the Declaration of Independence, which were God Given rights. The Declaration of Independence is our founding document. The USA did not exist before it, it came into being through it.
“The Preamble of the Constitution says that it is written to “Secure the Blessings of Liberty.” While it may be otherwise today, in 1787 the term “Blessing” meant nothing other than a gift from God.
Prove it.”
Prove what? It’s a fact. Ask yourself, what does “Blessing” mean? By the original definition, it is a benediction from God. And the Declaration of Independence plainly states that the laws of Liberty the Founding Fathers were invoking were based upon the Law of Nature and Nature’s God, which, in Locke’s Second Treatise (which the Declaration was based on) was the God of the Bible. Clearly the Founding Fathers acknowledged that their freedom was God-Given. George Washington declared a day of Thanksgiving in his first term and the First Congress approved printing Bibles for missionaries. They held church services on the floor of Congress. And they passed the Northwest Ordinance, wherein Article III stated that religion WOULD be taught in schools. Hardly indicators that they favored total removal of Christianity from the Public Square.
“Locke discusses this a lot. Yes, based on the will of the people WHO ARE MADE FREE BY GOD.
The Constitution doesn’t say this.”
The Declaration of Independence does. The Constitution is the technical means by which we will keep these God-Given Blessings of Liberty.
“What’s more, if you respect the will of the people, as you claim, then you will stop trying to tell a community what monuments they can and can’t put up.
The Constitution explicitly denies local majorities from doing certain things.”
It may deny certain majorities from doing certain things, but it does not deny any community the right to put up a monument honoring God.
“That is an outright lie.
I can’t tell what you are referring to, but everything I said about the case included links with detailed background information. Everythign I wrote was correct: he sought to proselytize by using carefully selected excerpts political and legal documents, including the Declaration of Independence.”
I am not necessarily saying you are the liar. You probably aren’t, the ACLU and Liberal Media are. You just believe them. I listened to this guy and his Atheist Activist Accuser on Hannity and Colmes. There was no mention of his proselytizing. Merely that he showed that God was in the Declaration of Independence and that our Freedoms were God-Given. It’s all there.
“He lost because the California court system is packed with corrupt Liberal judges who do not care about the US Constitution, but rule according to the dictates of World Socialism.
Prove it.
I note you don’t admit to having “forgotten” that the lawsuit was filed by him, not by others.”
I might have been in error in that detail. Fact is, he was teaching the truth about the Declaration of Independence. He did not depart from fact in any way. And they silenced him. Doesn’t really matter who did it. It is tyranny based on a judicial activism.
“Hah! I can back up everything I say with fact.
Then why don’t you? You make lots of claims and even more insults, but I’ve pointed out specific errors you have made and I have offered specific arguments.”
I do. I admit I might have been wrong about one detail of the Cuppertino Case. But I have not been in error about the substance of anything I’ve said.
“Oh no, the USA was ever Secularist
I didn’t say “secularist,” I said “secular.” American government was secular as was, perhaps more importantly, the science which produced the technology in question. ”
The only way the US could be called “Secular” is in the fact there is no official religion at the Federal Level. America’s motto is “In God We Trust.” America was ruled a Christian nation by the SCOTUS in the Trinity case in 1892. The fact is, for most of the last 1500 years, the most technologically advanced nations have been staunchly Christian- 500-ca. 1180 AD it was the Eastern Roman Empire, incorrectly known as the Byzantine Empire. In the 17th century, the most advanced nation was Holland, whose Republic was founded by ardent Calvinists. They were supplanted by the UK, whose 1688 Glorious Revolution, led by hard-core Calvinists like Locke and William III, the King from Holland. England was the most advanced country in the 18th and 19th century. Then came America (the same placed ruled by the SCOTUS to be a Christian country in 1892).
Karly the Atheist Activist stand on Christianity is not neutral. Check out what happened to Christians in the French Revolution, the USSR, PRC and Pol Pot’s Kampuchea to see the truth.
I am not insecure in my Faith. My country’s founding document says that the rights of freedom that I enjoy are God Given. That is Natural Law expounded on by Locke, and was written about in the Declaration. If you take that away, then Big Brother is the only guaranteur of my rights. And that is the difference. I don’t want to live under a government that thinks it is god, as opposed to one that acknowledges a higher authority. All states that have made themselves god have murdered people in carload lots.
I don’t have anything on Intelligent Design right in front of me. But it was formulated by a group of scientists, many ardent former Darwinists, who argued that Darwin’s theories don’t hold up. And they don’t.
Do you believe that women and black’s evolved inferior to men? Darwin’s theory does. Why aren’t we taught that part of Darwin’s theory? Because we are only taught the PARTS of Darwin’s theories that the Political Left approves of.
The theory that we all come from a common amoeba that just popped into existence (THAT is a joke) was first formulated by a Soviet Scientist under Joseph Stalin. Yet again, the Secular Left imposes Stalinist dogmas on us. An amoeba just coming into existence is statistically impossible.
Darwin based his theories on the notion that simple organisms evolve into more complex ones. However, an amoeba may be small, but it is complex. Thus Darwin’s theories break down. Study a cell’s mitosis, its cell wall, how it prevents toxins from coming in, while letting food in. The functions of a single-cell are complex. Darwin, writing before the age of electron microscopes, assumed they were simple. He was wrong. He was wrong about everything, just about.
People who believe in Darwinism can’t win the argument in a scientific debate, they have to run to the corrupt court system and get them to silence people from their free speech and academic freedom.
Where? I notice you continue to refuse to provide any examples of what I ask you to provide examples of.
Only in school-approved speeches. Should schools express approval of Jesus?
Local government are not allowed to endorse any religions or religious scriptures. How does this deny any individuals any religious rights?
No, they aren’t.
Not since the First Amendment started to be applied against local an state governments. Or do you think that local and state governments should be allowed to restrict free speech as well?
This doesn’t support your accusation, that I am “appointing [myself] a Soviet Komissar and tyrannizing a community into removing its mouments, which violates their freedom of speech and freedom of religion”
Thanks for admitting that the phrase “right to a fair trial” doesn’t appear in the Constitution and must be “found” by “paraphrasing.” Since admit this in principle, you’ll have to explain why the First Amendment cant’ be paraphrased as “separation of church and state.
In other words, it’s OK to use a phrase to express ideas that the Constitution expresses using other words.
The Constitution doesn’t say that any rights are “God Given.”
Then provide your evidence that the word was used only in that manner at that time and not in any broader way.
The Constitution doesn’t say that it is a means for preserving anything from any gods.
It does if it prohibits the government from endorsing, promoting, or financing any religions.
Prove it. Whatever I said that you assert is a lie, cite what it is and why it’s wrong.
Might? At this point, you don’t see to know what the truth is or is not — yet you continue to make allegations and assertions about the case. Don’t you think you should step back and familiarize yourself with the facts before going any further?
Fact? OK, prove it.
I asked you to prove that “He lost because the California court system is packed with corrupt Liberal judges who do not care about the US Constitution, but rule according to the dictates of World Socialism.” Why do you refuse?
Then why is it that I have had to ask you to support several of your assertions multiple times over?
There isn’t. For there to be an official religion, there would have to be an established religion — and even theocrats admit that the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing an official religion. They don’t accept that it prohibits much more, but they do acknowledge that much.
Now, you appear to be one of those who recognizes that, if nothing else, the federal government cannot officially establish any religions. Ergo, you admit that the US is secular.
That means you agree with me, by the way.
If you cannot support your claims, then you shouldn’t make them. Should I assume from your failure to answer any of my questions that you can’t answer them and thus have no way to support anything you’ve said about Intelligent Design?
Prove that modern evolutionary biology teaches that women and blacks evolved inferior to men.
Then why is evolution accepted throughout the scientific community while Intelligent Design is ignored — except when being ridiculed? If evolutionary theory always failed in scientific debates, then there would be nothing of evolution in scientific literature. Exactly the opposite just happens to be the case.
“People are forbidden to pray in school,
Where? I notice you continue to refuse to provide any examples of what I ask you to provide examples of.”
Everywhere. You think a teacher could lead a voluntary prayer in a school right now without being sued? Come on, I thought you were on the ball.
“valedictorians are forbidden to mention Jesus,
Only in school-approved speeches. Should schools express approval of Jesus?”
I think a student who wishes to mention Jesus as their guide and Inspiration has the freedom of speech under our Constitution to do so and anyone who would deny this right is a tyrant. And yes, schools should be able to ENCOURAGE spirituality, though not force it on anyone. After all, the Northwest Ordinance passed by the First Congress said that in schools Religion and morality would be forever encouraged. So yes. They just don’t have the right to force anyone. And from 1776 until the Usurpation by the Supreme Court in Engle v Vitale in 1962 no one ever was forced.
“communities are forbidden to post the Ten Commandments,
Local government are not allowed to endorse any religions or religious scriptures. How does this deny any individuals any religious rights?”
there is no law in the UNITED STATES Constitution that says so. It denies the rights of a community to honor God as community if they wish to use their freedom of speech and freedom of religion to do so.
“even though they are the basis for our laws.
No, they aren’t.”
The Declaration of Independence comes from Locke, Locke is Biblically based. I read in Locke (135 chapter of the second treatise, pg 184 in the “everyman” version) the following quote-
“The rules that they (the Legislature) make for other men’s actions, must, for their own and for other men’s actions, be conformable to the Law of Nature, ie to the Will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid, against it.”
In other words, the Founding Fathers believed this, as they believed Locke, who’s Biblically based philosophies were the basis of our own laws, so yes, in fact, our laws are Biblically based and a law against Scripture is against the bedrock principles of America.
“By the Establishment Clause, which says “Congress Shall make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion” (emphasis mine). The Federal Government is expressly forbidden from involving itself in the affairs of states and localities for or against.
Not since the First Amendment started to be applied against local an state governments. Or do you think that local and state governments should be allowed to restrict free speech as well?”
Not at all. The XIV Amendment can be applied to the Free Speech Clause because there is no prohibition against the Federal Government protecting free speech. The Establishment Clause is geared to expressly forbid the Federal Government from getting involved in local and state religious affairs. And you can’t break a law to enforce it, which is what you are doing when you use Federal courts to meddle in state and local religious affairs.
“Atheist activists, the ACLU and the Southern Bolshevik Law Center are trying to purge politcally incorrect thought, such as religious thought, from the body politic.
This doesn’t support your accusation, that I am “appointing [myself] a Soviet Komissar and tyrannizing a community into removing its mouments, which violates their freedom of speech and freedom of religion””
If you support the freedom of a community to put up a monument that you don’t agree with, then I will apologize and take it back.
“Actually, the VI Amendment can be paraphrased as “fair trial.”
Thanks for admitting that the phrase “right to a fair trial” doesn’t appear in the Constitution and must be “found” by “paraphrasing.” Since admit this in principle, you’ll have to explain why the First Amendment cant’ be paraphrased as “separation of church and state.”
Sorry, but that logic is extremely lame. Just because something can be paraphrased out of the Constitution, doesn’t mean that anything your mind can dream up, like Separation of Church and State, is there. As I stated before, an actual reading of the Establishment Clause (the only thing dealing with the relationship between church and state) says that the Federal Government cannot involve itself in local religious affairs. Nothing about Separation of Church and State.
“The powers of the branches of government are enumerated, thus separating their powers, so such a phrase is not out of line to use.
In other words, it’s OK to use a phrase to express ideas that the Constitution expresses using other words.”
Yes, as long as the concept is actually a part of the Constitution. Separation of Church and State cannot be paraphrased out of any part of the Constitution because neither the words nor the concept are there.
“The Constitution was our way of preserving the rights we claimed in the Declaration of Independence, which were God Given rights.
The Constitution doesn’t say that any rights are “God Given.””
“Blessings of Liberty” = God Given Gifts of Liberty, from the same Natural Law and Nature’s God of the Declaration of Independence, which is the God of the Bible and His Law.
“It’s a fact.
Then provide your evidence that the word was used only in that manner at that time and not in any broader way.”
Fine I’ll find some. Didn’t expect to have to split hairs over linguistics, but ok, no problem.
Saying that “people are forbidden to pray in school” doesn’t mean the same as “state employees are forbidden from leading other people’s children in prayers which the parents may or may not approve of.” Teachers can pray on their own. Students can pray on their own. Students can pray in groups. People, as individuals, can pray all they want.
This means that you think that a student who wishes to endorse Nazis, segregation, anti-Semitism, and so forth in their school-approved speech should be allowed to.
Whose spirituality? Why?
Communities don’t have “freedom of speech,” individuals do. This means that prohibiting a local government from endorsing one religion over others doesn’t infringe on the rights of any individuals.
Irrelevant, as they aren’t our laws.
“By the Establishment Clause, which says “Congress Shall make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion” (emphasis mine). The Federal Government is expressly forbidden from involving itself in the affairs of states and localities for or against.
Not since the First Amendment started to be applied against local an state governments. Or do you think that local and state governments should be allowed to restrict free speech as well?”
Prove it.
So, you think that state and local governments have the authority to establish official religions?
Oh, I don’t think that whether I personally agree with a monument or a monument’s message is in any way a restriction on whether a community can erect a monument. I think that there are other restrictions on what a community can do, but those are not restrictions based upon what I personally do and do not prefer.
I didn’t dream up “separation of church and state.” So, your objection doesn’t apply. Why isn’t “separation of church and state” a valid paraphrasing of the words which are there?
Yes, I know you asserted this. Asserting it doesn’t make it true. When are you going to support your claim?
The concept “separation of church and state” can be paraphrased in another way: separation of religious and civil authority. Is it your position that this concept is not in the Constitution?
You have yet to support your claim about what “Blessings of Liberty” means.
In other words, you don’t have any support now - you just stated it and hoped that you wouldn’t be challenged (since the way the word was used is crucial to your argument, it isn’t “splitting hairs” to demand that you show that your claim about how the word was used is accurate). You are in effect admitting that you made an assertion even though you had no idea if it was true or not, then based a conclusion about the meaning of the Constitution on that assertion.
This is the second time you’ve done this and I’m afraid that I simply can’t allow a third. You cannot clog up the comments of this site with random assertions pulled out of thin air. No, I’m not silencing your “arguments,” I’m just not going to permit you to post material here when you don’t know if it’s true or not. That sort of intellectually irresponsibility (and, yes, it’s irresponsible even if it turns out that you’re right) simply cannot be tolerated.
If you have something to say, post it in the forum. Rules there are more relaxed and the ability to post there means that you cannot claim to have been censored. You can still express yourself on this site, but you won’t be allowed to do it through comments until you demonstrate an ability to exercise more responsibility with what you write. If you want copies of the posts which I am getting rid of, email me and I will send you the text.
Are all the comments on this page from this denidas guy?
sheesh.
Why waste time and energy on this weird fanatic?