So how is that any different than saying a specific religions prayer?

 

FWIW I'm pretty sure the FFRF files lawsuits against the National Day of Prayer and the inauguration prayers.

 

FWIW I'm pretty sure the FFRF files lawsuits against the National Day of Prayer and the inauguration prayers.

 

Eh, I guess that shouldn't surprise me. This kind of stuff has always been done, and done very publicly. I know the extreme read on this is that it is a public endorsement by default, but unless you are going to find a court to go against 235 years of American history, I don't see it being unconstitutional as has always been accepted.

Eh, I guess that shouldn't surprise me. This kind of stuff has always been done, and done very publicly. I know the extreme read on this is that it is a public endorsement by default, but unless you are going to find a court to go against 235 years of American history, I don't see it being unconstitutional as has always been accepted.

 

That demarcation between individual who happens to be a government employee and government employee promoting religion isn't a clear one, that's for sure.

 

edit: but argument from tradition isn't a valid argument, at least logically. Might be different legally with stare decisis and interpretation of intent etc.

Edited July 14, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Because of the hypothetical scenario i came up with?

 

First off, let me say, I don't believe Obama is a Muslim. I believe he's a horrible president for many reasons that I won't get into, but I do not believe he is a Muslim. I don't believe he was born in Kenya either, but I don't really mind people trying to put him through the vetting process.

 

That said, I don't think I would ever vote for a Muslim. But not because of that alone, but because of the beliefs that would likely come with it. You find me a Muslim politician who is far right, supporting capitalism, American military might and exceptionalism, who loves Israel, and demands the annihilation of al-Qaeda around the globe, and supports the Constitution down to the very last word, etc etc...I'll give that guy the same consideration I give my political heroes such as Allen West, Rick Perry or Herman Cain. But do you really think such a guy exists? I don't.

The Constitution means a lot of things to a lot of different people and so did it in 1787... and I wish people would read it before they talked about it. It says specific things certain pieces of the government do, certain things it explicitly can't do, and implies a WHOLE LOT of other s***. It was done that way on purpose.

The Constitution means a lot of things to a lot of different people and so did it in 1787... and I wish people would read it before they talked about it. It says specific things certain pieces of the government do, certain things it explicitly can't do, and implies a WHOLE LOT of other s***. It was done that way on purpose.

 

The problem is when SCOTUS decides, over 200 years, that there's something implied in the Constitution despite the fact that there is express language dealing with the issue.

The problem is when SCOTUS decides, over 200 years, that there's something implied in the Constitution despite the fact that there is express language dealing with the issue.

Can you give an example of the SCOTUS deciding something that is explicitly in opposition to something in the Constitution?

Rick Perry's Christianist Army

 

If his nascent campaign sounds like a crusade, that's because it is:

The new evangelical

s

are part of the New Apo

s

tolic Reformation, an increa

s

ingly influential American Chri

s

tian movement who

s

e leader

s

con

s

ider them

s

elve

s

modern-day prophet

s

and apo

s

tle

s

. Many of the organizer

s

for The Re

s

pon

s

e are New Apo

s

tle

s

, and the event'

s

official endor

s

er li

s

t read

s

li

k

e a ro

s

ter of virtually everyone important to the movement.

 

In an

article for The Texa

s

Ob

s

erver

, reporter Fore

s

t Wilder note

s

that the New Apo

s

tolic Reformation ha

s

been quietly expanding on the fringe

s

of Chri

s

tian fundamentali

s

m

s

ince the 1990

s

. The New Apo

s

tle

s

' belief

s

—

which focu

s

on Chri

s

tian dominion and End Time

s

—

are extreme, even for other con

s

ervative Chri

s

tian

s

.

 

A

s

main

s

tream evangelical influence wane

s

, however, the New Apo

s

tolic Reformation i

s

gaining broader acceptance among con

s

ervative Chri

s

tian

s

. The Re

s

pon

s

e, who

s

e endor

s

er

s

al

s

o include more main

s

tream fundamentali

s

t

s

, i

s

evidence of the New Apo

s

tle

s

' emerging influence

—

and of it

s

leader

s

growing appetite for political power.

via

 

I think that is a really strained argument.

 

People are allowed to have their beliefs.

Can you give an example of the SCOTUS deciding something that is explicitly in opposition to something in the Constitution?

 

I just saw this post.

 

Most of the decisions regarding religion are against what the constitution says. It says "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."

 

In nearly every case they've ignored the "shall make no law" part. Now it's just acting in anyway, include inferring that a religion exists.

 

Reliant Stadium can hold 71k. So far, 8k have registered for this event.

Reliant Stadium can hold 71k. So far, 8k have registered for this event.

 

LOL

I've read the Constitution, I've read quite a bit of the history that surrounded the writing of the Constitution. IMHO the writers were mostly protecting religion from the government *not* protecting the government from religion. Many of the soon to be states were founded by religious groups leaving oppressive countries for then freedom of the new world. Others were started to earn a profit for the investors who for the most part had little interest in religion. I believe the protections were placed in the Constitution like many things our government does, as part of a compromise.