Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Seperation of Church and State.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

The 1st Amendment reads "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."

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

The wall of Separation has always been meant to protect Religious freedom from the government intrusion (as it is doing today).
http://www.wallbuilders.com......

The Founding Fathers had a chapel made for Congress, had 2 Congressional Chaplains.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions
http://www.loc.gov......

Writes, [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

One thing that becomes apparent is it is Congress who shall pass no law. And that is where the restriction lies. Certainly so many state constitutions mirror the federal constitution, and those may apply.

And notice it says shall make NO LAW. So even if a representative of the government is speaking about God, or their religion, Would only be an impingement upon the separation of church and state if that individual was enacting a law or regulation.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:20:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Fourteenth Amendment caused the Bill of Rights to apply to all levels of government, not just federal. That is why the separation of church and state is now enforced on all levels of government today, yet was not at its inception. Massachusetts, for example, had a sort of establishment of religion in its early days.

The idea that the separation was only meant to be one way is also unfounded; it was meant to remove government from religion, which necessitates removing religion from government. They are the same thing, as by acting in the religious sphere government is entangling itself with religion. This is why we typically use the endorsement test to resolve such cases.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 11:46:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

If this is true, then how do you explain prohibition or the income tax?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:00:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 11:46:29 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

If this is true, then how do you explain prohibition or the income tax?

When something like those things are unconstitutional the fix is to admend the constitution. Which is what happened.

I disagree with the admendments or laws that give government more power than what was enumerated
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:10:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 12:00:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 11:46:29 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

If this is true, then how do you explain prohibition or the income tax?

When something like those things are unconstitutional the fix is to admend the constitution. Which is what happened.

I disagree with the admendments or laws that give government more power than what was enumerated

But this is 100% in conflict with your statement. Amendments are not always to protect individual rights. In fact, they can be explicitly to deny them.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 5:46:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

The 1st Amendment reads "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."

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

That is wrong and not accurate. You can not say anything you want about the God or devil for that matter anywhere you want. Try soliciting people at your work to convert them to your religion and see how far you get.

It is perfectly acceptable for me to fire you as a private employee if your use of speech is disruptive to the work place. That is even true with Religious affiliation as a protected class.

The wall of Separation has always been meant to protect Religious freedom from the government intrusion (as it is doing today).
http://www.wallbuilders.com......

The Founding Fathers had a chapel made for Congress, had 2 Congressional Chaplains.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions
http://www.loc.gov......

Writes, [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

One thing that becomes apparent is it is Congress who shall pass no law. And that is where the restriction lies. Certainly so many state constitutions mirror the federal constitution, and those may apply.

And notice it says shall make NO LAW. So even if a representative of the government is speaking about God, or their religion, Would only be an impingement upon the separation of church and state if that individual was enacting a law or regulation.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:33:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:46:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

The 1st Amendment reads "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."

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

That is wrong and not accurate. You can not say anything you want about the God or devil for that matter anywhere you want. Try soliciting people at your work to convert them to your religion and see how far you get.

It is perfectly acceptable for me to fire you as a private employee if your use of speech is disruptive to the work place. That is even true with Religious affiliation as a protected class.

You can fire anybody you want if their actions are disruptive to work. I guess you miss the point.

An atheist or theist also can't scream fire in a movie theater. Thanks for adding to the discussion.


The wall of Separation has always been meant to protect Religious freedom from the government intrusion (as it is doing today).
http://www.wallbuilders.com......

The Founding Fathers had a chapel made for Congress, had 2 Congressional Chaplains.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions
http://www.loc.gov......

Writes, [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

One thing that becomes apparent is it is Congress who shall pass no law. And that is where the restriction lies. Certainly so many state constitutions mirror the federal constitution, and those may apply.

And notice it says shall make NO LAW. So even if a representative of the government is speaking about God, or their religion, Would only be an impingement upon the separation of church and state if that individual was enacting a law or regulation.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:38:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 6:33:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 5:46:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

The 1st Amendment reads "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."

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

That is wrong and not accurate. You can not say anything you want about the God or devil for that matter anywhere you want. Try soliciting people at your work to convert them to your religion and see how far you get.

It is perfectly acceptable for me to fire you as a private employee if your use of speech is disruptive to the work place. That is even true with Religious affiliation as a protected class.

You can fire anybody you want if their actions are disruptive to work. I guess you miss the point.

An atheist or theist also can't scream fire in a movie theater. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

You are welcome. i guess I took you for your word when you wrote, "So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

carry on because I clearly can not understand what your meaning was.


The wall of Separation has always been meant to protect Religious freedom from the government intrusion (as it is doing today).
http://www.wallbuilders.com......

The Founding Fathers had a chapel made for Congress, had 2 Congressional Chaplains.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions
http://www.loc.gov......

Writes, [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

One thing that becomes apparent is it is Congress who shall pass no law. And that is where the restriction lies. Certainly so many state constitutions mirror the federal constitution, and those may apply.

And notice it says shall make NO LAW. So even if a representative of the government is speaking about God, or their religion, Would only be an impingement upon the separation of church and state if that individual was enacting a law or regulation.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:56:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 6:38:21 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:33:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 5:46:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

The 1st Amendment reads "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."

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

That is wrong and not accurate. You can not say anything you want about the God or devil for that matter anywhere you want. Try soliciting people at your work to convert them to your religion and see how far you get.

It is perfectly acceptable for me to fire you as a private employee if your use of speech is disruptive to the work place. That is even true with Religious affiliation as a protected class.

You can fire anybody you want if their actions are disruptive to work. I guess you miss the point.

An atheist or theist also can't scream fire in a movie theater. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

You are welcome. i guess I took you for your word when you wrote, "So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

carry on because I clearly can not understand what your meaning was.

Yes I'm sure hyperbole is not the only thing that escapes your understanding.




The wall of Separation has always been meant to protect Religious freedom from the government intrusion (as it is doing today).
http://www.wallbuilders.com......

The Founding Fathers had a chapel made for Congress, had 2 Congressional Chaplains.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions
http://www.loc.gov......

Writes, [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

One thing that becomes apparent is it is Congress who shall pass no law. And that is where the restriction lies. Certainly so many state constitutions mirror the federal constitution, and those may apply.

And notice it says shall make NO LAW. So even if a representative of the government is speaking about God, or their religion, Would only be an impingement upon the separation of church and state if that individual was enacting a law or regulation.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:59:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 12:00:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 11:46:29 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

If this is true, then how do you explain prohibition or the income tax?

When something like those things are unconstitutional the fix is to admend the constitution. Which is what happened.

I disagree with the admendments or laws that give government more power than what was enumerated

You can disagree with completely valid amendments all you want, but this makes it obvious that your OP was just under-informed drivel.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 9:53:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 6:56:53 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:38:21 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:33:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 5:46:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

The 1st Amendment reads "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."

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

That is wrong and not accurate. You can not say anything you want about the God or devil for that matter anywhere you want. Try soliciting people at your work to convert them to your religion and see how far you get.

It is perfectly acceptable for me to fire you as a private employee if your use of speech is disruptive to the work place. That is even true with Religious affiliation as a protected class.

You can fire anybody you want if their actions are disruptive to work. I guess you miss the point.

An atheist or theist also can't scream fire in a movie theater. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

You are welcome. i guess I took you for your word when you wrote, "So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

carry on because I clearly can not understand what your meaning was.

Yes I'm sure hyperbole is not the only thing that escapes your understanding.


If that was actually hyperbole (and you're not just backpedaling because you said something foolish), then it was poorly executed.

Hyperbole has no place in a detailed discussion/debate about law. In law it is essential that you say precisely what you mean. Laws that are not explicit in their phrasing can do more harm than good.

If you want to have a discussion on this topic please leave hyperbole out of it.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 3:28:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:46:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

The 1st Amendment reads "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."

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

That is wrong and not accurate. You can not say anything you want about the God or devil for that matter anywhere you want. Try soliciting people at your work to convert them to your religion and see how far you get.

It is perfectly acceptable for me to fire you as a private employee if your use of speech is disruptive to the work place. That is even true with Religious affiliation as a protected class.

This is a poor counterexample because this does not involve free speech rights. The Constitution protects you from government overreach, not the biases of your employer and coworkers.

So, yes, you can evangelize at work without being fined by the government or being arrested, but there is no protection from getting fired. That is not within the purview of the Constitution's protections.

The wall of Separation has always been meant to protect Religious freedom from the government intrusion (as it is doing today).
http://www.wallbuilders.com......

The Founding Fathers had a chapel made for Congress, had 2 Congressional Chaplains.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions
http://www.loc.gov......

Writes, [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

One thing that becomes apparent is it is Congress who shall pass no law. And that is where the restriction lies. Certainly so many state constitutions mirror the federal constitution, and those may apply.

And notice it says shall make NO LAW. So even if a representative of the government is speaking about God, or their religion, Would only be an impingement upon the separation of church and state if that individual was enacting a law or regulation.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 6:48:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You're right. Jefferson did state that there shouldn't be any laws against freedom of religion. But you're leaving out the other parts of the laws. Those laws state that religion should not be a part of any government, as pertaining to laws that are legislated, or promotion of religion, or promotion of holidays or celebrations of that religion, or words in government documents that favor a religion. These are just some of the ideas that Jefferson and others promoted. There are more. There are a lot of writings from the Jefferson and the Founding Fathers as to how to keep government and religion separated.
They did this for your protection and my protection. Remember, many of the people that came to America were fleeing theocracy. They were also fleeing the many wars that those theocracy's brought about in Europe. They understood the dangers of marrying religion with government. They understood this so profoundly, that even the Founding Fathers who were Christian's were trying to keep religion and government separated.
Part of Jefferson's promotion of separation of church and state came about because certain religions were being persecuted in certain states. Catholics were being persecuted by Baptists. Protestants were being persecuted by Catholics. Jefferson understood that those who were persecuted would inevitably flee that persecution and then set up a government in their own state to protect their beliefs. This would lead to the same disunity in the USA that was going on in Europe.
So anytime anyone tries to claim states rights when a state tries to adopt a state religion, such as Tennessee, they are defying the Constitution, and the laws set forth by it. They are thinking with their ego's and not with their minds. They are leading us down a path that would take us into a divided USA that would look more liked 17th century Europe, not the United States.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 7:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:46:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

The 1st Amendment reads "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."

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

That is wrong and not accurate. You can not say anything you want about the God or devil for that matter anywhere you want. Try soliciting people at your work to convert them to your religion and see how far you get.

It is perfectly acceptable for me to fire you as a private employee if your use of speech is disruptive to the work place. That is even true with Religious affiliation as a protected class.

The wall of Separation has always been meant to protect Religious freedom from the government intrusion (as it is doing today).
http://www.wallbuilders.com......

The Founding Fathers had a chapel made for Congress, had 2 Congressional Chaplains.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions
http://www.loc.gov......

Writes, [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

One thing that becomes apparent is it is Congress who shall pass no law. And that is where the restriction lies. Certainly so many state constitutions mirror the federal constitution, and those may apply.

And notice it says shall make NO LAW. So even if a representative of the government is speaking about God, or their religion, Would only be an impingement upon the separation of church and state if that individual was enacting a law or regulation.

Well said. While most employees aren't going to say anything if a person casually says they are glad they found Jesus, but if that person is continually proselytizing at work and causing a burden to the other employees, then that employer has every right to fire that employee. Imagine what a Christian would think if a Muslim or Satanist was preaching their God at work. The Christian would have a fit. This is where many Christians are missing the boat. Their whole idea about religious freedom is really backed up by an underlying promotion of theocracy. Their opinion is that everyone should follow their religion and that the laws should back up their position, but not back up the position of other religions.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 10:52:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

The 1st Amendment reads "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."

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

The wall of Separation has always been meant to protect Religious freedom from the government intrusion (as it is doing today).
http://www.wallbuilders.com......

The Founding Fathers had a chapel made for Congress, had 2 Congressional Chaplains.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions
http://www.loc.gov......

Writes, [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

One thing that becomes apparent is it is Congress who shall pass no law. And that is where the restriction lies. Certainly so many state constitutions mirror the federal constitution, and those may apply.

And notice it says shall make NO LAW. So even if a representative of the government is speaking about God, or their religion, Would only be an impingement upon the separation of church and state if that individual was enacting a law or regulation.

You know there is over 200 years of case law on this. But I guess we can just ignore all that for some reason.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 3:47:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 10:52:13 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

The 1st Amendment reads "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."

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

The wall of Separation has always been meant to protect Religious freedom from the government intrusion (as it is doing today).
http://www.wallbuilders.com......

The Founding Fathers had a chapel made for Congress, had 2 Congressional Chaplains.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions
http://www.loc.gov......

Writes, [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

One thing that becomes apparent is it is Congress who shall pass no law. And that is where the restriction lies. Certainly so many state constitutions mirror the federal constitution, and those may apply.

And notice it says shall make NO LAW. So even if a representative of the government is speaking about God, or their religion, Would only be an impingement upon the separation of church and state if that individual was enacting a law or regulation.

You know there is over 200 years of case law on this. But I guess we can just ignore all that for some reason.

Every other person in my family lives to be late 90s to 100. 200 years just doesn't sound like a long time to me.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 4:40:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 3:47:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:52:13 AM, Death23 wrote:

You know there is over 200 years of case law on this. But I guess we can just ignore all that for some reason.

Every other person in my family lives to be late 90s to 100. 200 years just doesn't sound like a long time to me.

Ah, I see. So, the entire body of case law on this subject which contradicts your interpretations should be ignored because your family benefits from longevity. I'm sold.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 4:48:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 4:40:29 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 7/27/2015 3:47:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:52:13 AM, Death23 wrote:

You know there is over 200 years of case law on this. But I guess we can just ignore all that for some reason.

Every other person in my family lives to be late 90s to 100. 200 years just doesn't sound like a long time to me.

Ah, I see. So, the entire body of case law on this subject which contradicts your interpretations should be ignored because your family benefits from longevity. I'm sold.

If your not interested in presenting the counter view yourself, then no need to post. This website is called debate.org
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 5:28:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 4:48:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/27/2015 4:40:29 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 7/27/2015 3:47:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:52:13 AM, Death23 wrote:

You know there is over 200 years of case law on this. But I guess we can just ignore all that for some reason.

Every other person in my family lives to be late 90s to 100. 200 years just doesn't sound like a long time to me.

Ah, I see. So, the entire body of case law on this subject which contradicts your interpretations should be ignored because your family benefits from longevity. I'm sold.

If your not interested in presenting the counter view yourself, then no need to post. This website is called debate.org

You make different assertions on so many legal questions that it isn't reasonable to expect someone to substantiate an opposing view for all of them, but I will present my views.

The Amendments of the Constitution are always INDIVIDUAL rights protected by the Law.

False.

Any Law Congress makes that ABRIDGES the free speech of an individual is unconstitutional.

False

Any Law Congress makes that prohibits the FREE EXERCISE of Religion ANYWHERE is unconstitutional.

False.

So no matter where I am, who I am talking to, or what I am doing, I AM FREE to say what ever I want about God.

False.

The wall of Separation has always been meant to protect Religious freedom from the government intrusion (as it is doing today).

Don't know.

One thing that becomes apparent is it is Congress who shall pass no law. And that is where the restriction lies.

False.

Certainly so many state constitutions mirror the federal constitution, and those may apply.

True.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 6:18:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I concede this argument is fraught with errors. More substantial a case is needed. Thank you for everyone who responded.