President's Speech

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The words "separation of church and state" does not appear in the US Constitution. What it does say is that the US shall establish no religion. People use the words "separation of church and state" as a club against Christians here.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. I'm getting sick of the anti-religion movement. It doesn't seem to apply to Muslims.

---

“"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....... is this what your referring too?

Its not that cut and dry , people love to spout the "freedom of religion" well its that and freedom from religion ....now before you tell me "it doesn't say that",b eliefs are one thing, attempting to remove or create mandated law that applies to all people of this nation are another.

If religion X says (insert desired law change) and that change would cause issues in religion Y's ability to practice it (or force non-religious to participate) then you have the establishment clause ( and free exercise clause ) to step in and say the government cannot make a law respecting a religion ( religion X in this case) or prohibit the free exercise thereof (religion Y) so you have freedom FROM religion X's proposed law ...

So although it does not does not say it....gssixgun nailed the response i just had to chime in

What I am referring to when I say freedom from religion.

Saying it is illegal to have a cross as a war memorial on public land because it violates church and state is ridiculous.

Saying it is illegal to say "in God we trust" on money and in the Pledge is ridiculous.

Neither of those is the government establishing a religion.

This issue with a cross on public land is that it implies that everyone that died serving is of the religion that cross represents .... and it being on public land, it should abide by the establishment clause, specifically because its taxed/publicly funded. I don't see how that is ridiculous.

Edit because i missed it...."Saying it is illegal to say "in God we trust" on money and in the Pledge is ridiculous."

Is the statement "in god we trust" not a direct indication to indicating what specific deity the "country" believes in? What if it were chaged to "in allah we trust" tomorrow ?? would you still feel the same ? im asking honestly out of curiosity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

What I am referring to when I say freedom from religion.

Saying it is illegal to have a cross as a war memorial on public land because it violates church and state is ridiculous.

Saying it is illegal to say "in God we trust" on money and in the Pledge is ridiculous.

Neither of those is the government establishing a religion.

---

You have to understand that since Columbus (if he even was the first) set foot here the "Christian Religion" (we have to decide if Catholics are included :) )
Have had a pretty free reign, and used it as quite a big club in this country, only recently, have other Religious and Non-Religious groups begun to push back..

Since Christianity had so much established here for so long, it is seems that everyone is against them, but it actually is that everyone wants their rights too...

Freedom is a funny thing...

Decided to reserve my dopey comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WishinItWas

This issue with a cross on public land is that it implies that everyone that died serving is of the religion that cross represents .... and it being on public land, it should abide by the establishment clause, specifically because its taxed/publicly funded. I don't see how that is ridiculous.

Edit because i missed it...."Saying it is illegal to say "in God we trust" on money and in the Pledge is ridiculous."

Is the statement "in god we trust" not a direct indication to indicating what specific deity the "country" believes in? What if it were chaged to "in allah we trust" tomorrow ?? would you still feel the same ? im asking honestly out of curiosity

---

The monument I was talking about was erected decades ago. It is under attack by atheists in another state using law in a way that was never intended. Their argument isn't that it is about a specific religion, but that it is any religion at all. The Constitution says nothing about freedom FROM religion.

Yes, I would have a problem with Allah, but not because I have anything against the Muslim religion. I have a problem with any Muslim insertion into our government government because thay want to institute Shariah Law in the US. They are already getting this done in some locations. IMO Shariah Law goes against everything US Law stands for now. Everything about it is cruel and unusual. It is UnConstitutional and absurd for our courts to even consider ANY foreign law when deciding cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The monument I was talking about was erected decades ago. It is under attack by atheists in another state using law in a way that was never intended. Their argument isn't that it is about a specific religion, but that it is any religion at all. The Constitution says nothing about freedom FROM religion.

Yes, I would have a problem with Allah, but not because I have anything against the Muslim religion. I have a problem with any Muslim insertion into our government government because that want to institute Shariah Law in the US. They are already getting this done in some locations. IMO Shariah Law goes against everything US Law stands for now. Everything about it is cruel and unusual. It is UnConstitutional and absurd for our courts to even consider ANY foreign law when deciding cases.

---

I know that specific incident you are referring to, with the monument, and I agree with you in that regard. I believe it was even put there for specific people, who are named on the monument, that is a fight that should be left alone. My original point still stands in the case of a "generic cross" or religious symbol being erected on public property.

As to the comment (repeated) about the freedom from religion I think myself, and a few others have already made strong points proving that it exists with out the direct verbiage , please read the previous posts.

I will rewrite your last part and see if anything clicks....

Yes, I would have a problem with god, but not because I have anything against the christian religion. I have a problem with anychristian insertion into our government because that want to institute biblical morality Laws in the US. They are already getting this done with tax freedoms, changing the countries motto, infultrating the court system, fighting equal rights(gay/interracial marriage) etc. IMO biblical Law goes against everything US Law stands for now. Everything about it is cruel and unusual. It is UnConstitutional and absurd for our courts to even consider ANY foreign law(2000 yr old books are ok though?) when deciding cases.

oh and quickly adding ....no one is "infiltrating" our country with shariah law......i mean ...seriously

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WishinItWas

oh and quickly adding ....no one is "infiltrating" our country with shariah law......i mean ...seriously

---

I wish this was true, I really do. There was a court case in Florida just a few months ago where the judge agreed to apply Shariah law in mediating a case.

Oklahoma and Kansas have seen enough of a threat to pass laws banning Shariah. If you Google "Shariah Law in the US" you will find a lot of court cases dealing with it. You will also find a lot of people "poo pooing" the idea.

No sane person in the US is pushing to get shariah penal laws ( the ones dealing with violence and excessive punishment, degrading women etc) the people that was shariah consideration are talking about shariah dealing with praying, fasting, alms-giving, divorce, burials,inheritance etc........ who is demanding, or better yet , what judge is ruling in favor of shariah law with regard to hurting people???

Much like jews and christians ( the big two in the US) have specific rights within the court system (holidays, sabbath, refusing to vaccinate their children) the muslim community is fighting for these similar rights as outlined above. how is this different that the freedoms other religions enjoy in this country?

The bible is full of terrible things and yet no one is arguing that they should be able to stone their children to death for talking back to them .... but the sad irony of your fear of "foreign law" being harmful and against the constitution is that your ok with the bible being used to justify the fight against gay marriage and the use of contraceptives ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WishinItWas

The bible is full of terrible things and yet no one is arguing that they should be able to stone their children to death for talking back to them .... but the sad irony of your fear of "foreign law" being harmful and against the constitution is that your ok with the bible being used to justify the fight against gay marriage and the use of contraceptives ....

---

MY objections against gay marriage have nothing to do with religion. It has to do with gay couples then demanding to be able to raise children. I think it is wrong to expose children to a gay household because gay couples turn out gay children at a statistically much higher percentage than non-gay couples. 3% verses 15%. I have been through this argument MANY times with liberals. I still think the 3% is an exaggerated number.

My views on contraception have nothing to do with religion. Giving contraceptives to children encourages them to have sex WAY before they are able to handle the consequences, both physical and mental. I do think it is wrong to force religious organizations to supply contraceptives against their beliefs as Obamacare is attempting to do.