Annoying Things
- Thread starter Concordia
- Start date
- Status
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things
Godwin's Law: In a discussion forum, particularly in a debate, if you bring up anything relating to Nazi's or particularly compare a person to a Nazi, you automatically lose the argument.
-Concordia
Godwin's Law: In a discussion forum, particularly in a debate, if you bring up anything relating to Nazi's or particularly compare a person to a Nazi, you automatically lose the argument.
-Concordia
Frosty
a full fledged GF
Though I'm not in the habit of agreeing with people like Concordia, and I wouldn't leap at the chance to call what I'm about to do "agreeing," since he's a fool, I believe the record needs to be set straight as far as what's been said here regarding the Constitution of the United States of America.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Church and State, as entities, must be in any way separate, nor does it outlaw the acknowledgement of God as a concept included in any official documents (such as money) or in anything such as the pledge of allegiance.
Where most people get the misconception that such a thing exists at all is from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in reply to a letter sent him by the Danbury Baptist Association in 1801. He wrote:
The Constitutional passage in question is the First Amendment:
What amazes me are all the supposedly normal and tolerant people who suddenly emerged to defend that silly ruling by the 9th Circuit Court, and then to bitch and moan when it was overturned by the Supreme Court of the Nation. Even more amazing is the number of foreigners with opinions on the subject.
The inclusion of "...under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance is not in any way harmful or oppressive. God, as a concept, is not owned by Christianity, and its use in the Pledge does not imply any official endorsement of Christianity. Those offended by its inclusion in the Pledge could stand to learn a little tolerance, to ease their bigotry.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Church and State, as entities, must be in any way separate, nor does it outlaw the acknowledgement of God as a concept included in any official documents (such as money) or in anything such as the pledge of allegiance.
Where most people get the misconception that such a thing exists at all is from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in reply to a letter sent him by the Danbury Baptist Association in 1801. He wrote:
The concept of a "wall" separating Church and State is purely derived from Thomas Jefferson's personal interpretation of the Constitution (an interpretation which wasn't exactly strict by the standards of the day, as evidenced by the Louisiana Purchase,) which is no more valid than any other.
The Constitutional passage in question is the First Amendment:
This amendment covers a lot of ground, but what we'll focus on is the first condition, which prohibits the Federal Congress from lawfully establishing an official national religion. It does not, in any way, outlaw the inclusion of religious phrases such as "In God We Trust," or "...under God," from official discussion or official property.
What amazes me are all the supposedly normal and tolerant people who suddenly emerged to defend that silly ruling by the 9th Circuit Court, and then to bitch and moan when it was overturned by the Supreme Court of the Nation. Even more amazing is the number of foreigners with opinions on the subject.
The inclusion of "...under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance is not in any way harmful or oppressive. God, as a concept, is not owned by Christianity, and its use in the Pledge does not imply any official endorsement of Christianity. Those offended by its inclusion in the Pledge could stand to learn a little tolerance, to ease their bigotry.
TC
SubCrid
I will, of course, point out that this is not the only interpretation of this clause.
The problem with your interpretation is that it doesn't take into account the full statement. If it were speaking of that state establishing a religion, the 'free exercise thereof' would also refer to this state established religion. Instead, the clause is saying that congress can not make laws with respect to an establishment (noun, not verb) of religion.
One could probably argue that the pledge is unconstitutional under article 6 section 3 of your constitution if they wanted to, assuming one needs to pledge allegiance to take public office. I'm pretty lazy though...
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I'm pretty sure I ended this.
There we go!
There we go!
- Status