Atheists discriminated against

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by crowMAW
I do see your point...and yes, the situation you describe is in the realm of possibility.  However, the balance is still there...the Legislative Branch can initiate an amendment that clarifies the intent.  As you said before...it appears that gay marriages must be recognized in all 50 states.  Should the SCOTUS rule that that is the case, then the Congress and the States can amend the Constitution defining marriage.

Also understand that the SCOTUS does not send out proclomations from the bench whenever it feels like it.  It rules based on a pleading that requires both an act and an injured party.  The situation you describe above would only come about should the Executive or Legislative Branch inact a policy or law that curbs freedom of speech and someone sued to have their full freedom's restored.

BTW...are you ever going to answer my question?

OK heres my answer. The National Motto "In God We Trust" in no way causes a loss of civil rights or injury of any kind to any citizen in any way. Short of simply whineing that it violates the establishment clause, I see no reason for our elected representatives to waste their time on such a mundane issue. As you yourself noted the SCOTUS probably wouldn't touch it with a ten foot gavel, and Congress wouldn't even entertain the thought. Remember Congress opens with a Prayer. We fund religous men as chaplains in the Military with tax dollars, even the SCOTUS opens sessions with "God save this honorable court". How could wasteing time on an issue like that do anything but possibly energize the religous base to further erode the democratic party.

BTW...The left had better understand what damage an activist court is capable of, we are only one justice away from a shift to the right that progressives may find a little unsettleing. When the SCOTUS begins making rulings that clearly are ideologic in nature and not based on the constitution ie; Roe v Wade, where in deep trouble. You see the balance of power in this country is no longer as the old Civics teacher taught you "In the three branches of Government". They are increaseingly in the balance of the SCOTUS.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by weaselsan
OK heres my answer. The National Motto "In God We Trust" in no way causes a loss of civil rights or injury of any kind to any citizen in any way...

I think you were answering a different question.  The question is:

Originally posted by crowMAW
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by weaselsan
We need it to remind us where are inaliable rights come from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? The national motto and the Pledge did not include it before...why do we need to be reminded now?

I'm seriously trying to understand the purpose these additions from the perspective of a religious person who wants them to stay.

[lazs2]

crow... we have a fundamental dissagreement in that I do not believe that the wording of the law allows for government to do anything about religion or god other than not establish a national religion.   I can not imagine the founders using the phrase "touching religion" but..

The use of the word god by government in pledges and on money can be adressed two ways in my opinion.   You could file suit with the supreme court and have them interpret the meaning of seperation of church and state to include any generic reference to god ...

This might be difficult given that all the founders pledged to god and spent money with "in god we trust" on it...  They obviously had no problem with a reference to a generic god don't you see?

Or...You could simply vote on it with the understanding that it is not covered by the constitution and therefore not a right to use the generic god on money and pledges.

This stands a better chance since the generic god is more a habit and tradition and was simply an acceptable thing at the time... One could say that the population has not only become more secular but... that modern citizens are somehow.... Harmed?... Offended?  by a generic reference?   I think that is incorrect and that the ones wanting it struck are just trying to make a statement but.... I would go along with the majority.

As for gun control... it is allready unconstitutional...  it has strayed from the intent of the founders and our rights are indeed being infringed.... it is an obvious case for the cowardly supreme court to hear.  I look forward to it.

The only ruling was miller in the 30's and in that the supremes held that it was an individual right but felt that sawed off shotguns were not useful as weapons of common defense.

I tend to view the fanatics that are athiests with the same caution that I view all fanatics and people who follow a doctrine based on faith or feel.

I don't want to tell people that they can't see auras for instance because there might be an instrument that measures/reveals em next year or so...  To flatly claim that they do not exist is just as weird to me as caliming they do.

lazs

[Spitter]

Part I.
Oh boy, where to begin....

First of all, the clauses of the seven state constitutions that mention the religious test are rendered legally null and void by the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment, and more indirectly by the tenth amendment.

Now that doesn't render such religious test effectively null and void, due to the religious bigotry so in-eloquently expressed by several posters in this thread.  

You see, a lifetime of indoctrination (many call it brainwashing) leads to the easy demonization of those who are different, and religion has had many years of propaganda, lies, torture, killing, etc. to enforce their beliefs.

Nothing to discuss. Other than the fact that the site you linked attempts to embellish the establishment clause to suit its own agenda, and quotes the "wall of separation" paragraph which DOES NOT exist in the Constitution, but rather in a series of letters by Thomas Jefferson.

I am tolerant of your desire and wish to practice Atheism. I do not wish to see you or other Atheists excluded from any part of your rights.

I am however very INTOLERANT of the attempts by organized Atheists to remove God and the Judeo-Christian principles from the government that has served us quite well for 200 years. So, if you want to quote Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers, remember it was they who put GOD in about 90% of the documents founding this nation, and there is little if any doubt as to their intentions or to which God they referred.

 Oh man are you wrong.  Completely ignorant of both the history and actual documents surrounding the founding of this country.  First you say that what Jefferson said in a letter, and really, in a discussion of a series of letter doesn't matter, then you claim that the founding fathers put God in 'about 90% of the documents founding this nation'.  

Do you have a source for that, or are you just pulling that out of your ass??    First, the only document that founds the country and the government upon which it depends is the Constitution and it's amendments.  The only references to religion in that document have to do with freedom of and from religion, as well as a very clear insistence that the government remain neutral wrt religion.  
BTW Virgil, do you believe in the trinity?

The letters Jefferson wrote were to clarify the intent of the first amendment to a (Baptist IIRC) congregation. The intent of the writers is important in constitutional law.

Yes that the intent was that there would be no forming of an official national church such as there was a "Church of England" that all would be required by law to follow which was what their main concern was as the religion in question was among the most persecuted in England at the time and for which reason they chose to leave England for religious freedom to begin with.

Technically true.  And the 14th amendment extends that neutrality to the state governments as well.  That is what makes those clause ok to still have 'on the books' since they are rendered null and void by the 14th amendment.

And if you dont believe in a religion then you don’t have one, and as such cant be discriminated against.

That is a complete and utter non-sequiter.  I don't believe in racism either, but I can damn well assure you that one can still be discriminated against based on race.

keep your gods in your churches where they belong. render unto ceaser and all that.

Exactly, and don't forget Mathew 6:5-6.  

the atheist faith is way too much to swallow... I wish they would just go away with their theories or at least just keep em to themselves... their constant preaching is annoying.

So tell me lazs, when was the last time atheists came knocking on your door trying to convert you??  Oh wait, I know, you get sick and tired of all of the government representatives spouting off about how much they hate god.  No wait, that's not it...it must the fact that you can't find a church within 100 mile of where you live because the evil atheists burned them all down.  

You have an overdeveloped case of persecution complex.  No charge for the diagnoses.

Well... that would be fine... but it is the attack on other religions that get on my nerves... The fact that the money can't have "god" on it or they will be offended? How can they be offended? I do agree with pooh... I want the jehova witnesses to not come to my door but I also don't want to here the whining from the athiests here and in the news.

Well, you must be watching too much Faux news then.  Because they (we) ain't really in the news unless Bill O'Lielly is making up **** about the 'War on Xmas'.  

The government shouldn't put IGWT on the money (The original national motto, 'E Pluribus Unum' was much better, and all inclusive).  It was guess what, a drive by the religionists to get IGWT on the money and 'under gawd' inserted in the pledge.  Apparently the actual original wishes of the founding fathers didn't matter all that much eh??  Only the revised version since the insecure religious nutters felt the need to constantly cram their view down everyone else's throat.

lada you are correct in that most athiests see themselves as god.

Really?? Name one.  I see my self more as an invisible pink unicorn.    

Oh and Virgil, atheists don't "practice" anything. A-theism - lack of belief in god.  I know, I know, your preacher and Faux news has been telling you for years that we 'hate' god, but really.  Do you hate the easter bunny??  

Now, for a little lesson on how real atheists think, you'd do well to ask them.  I recommend http://www.iidb.org.  

I don't see you going out of your way to make any statements against the Atheists attempting to remove God from the government. Interesting how tolerance appears to go only one way.

That's because our country is supposed to be secular.  Meaning, no religious preference.  By logical extension, that means there has to be no preference between religious or non-religious thought as well.  Otherwise, it's just a smokescreen for a thinly veiled theocracy.  Answer this: How would you like your tax money to be going to Islamic based charities where you don't know they might be doing with that money?

nothing but... let's vote on it. the government can't sponsor any religion but I see nothing in the constitution that would force them to not mention god soooo..

This is indeed something that the people should decide. I will abide by the decision one way or the other so long as it does not infringe on any of my rights.

First, you're equivocating between our the US government, a representative democracy with rights guaranteed, and a pure democracy (mob rule).  

Many feel that the governments obvious preference for monotheism does infringe on their rights, so why are you ok with that?  You'd go along with the popular vote unless it infringes on your rights, but you're ok with the popular vote if it infringes on other's rights??  Either you're not making sense, or you're a hypocrite.

The whole point of the Bill of rights is to protect the rights of....the minority...to avoid what Jefferson (or maybe Madison) called the 'tyranny of the majority'.   As an example, if next week, the entire country decided that slavery was ok, but we would only take as slave those who live in, say, Dixon, CA. that would be the majority vote.    Get used to those shackles man....

[Spitter]

There are a lot of people in this Country that are getting a little tired of a minority attempting to change words in the Constitution. The Bill of rights clearly states (Freedom OF religion)..It does not say Freedom FROM religion.

Man, this is a short sighted, narrow minded view that has been diced to death by legal scholars for decades now.  You can't have freedom of religion if you don't have freedom from religion.  Do you really need me to spell it out for you?? I can try to use small words.

RTR makes hte point very well with sarcasm!  

The establishment clause is only one part of the first amendment, but it has been interpreted to mean that the only real, practical way to truly abide by it is 100% government neutrality WRT religion.  The Lemon test, McReary, and dozens of other landmark cases make this quite clear.  (I predict at least one whine about 'activist judges'.)

Freedom OF religion means simply that. It means in the daily course of life you will be exposed to people practiceing their faith.

Yep, no problem with that.  I don't exaclty see a shartage of churches around here....

More and more in this Country certain religions are being supressed.

Really??  Not where I live.  I think you have been watching too much Faux News.  Define suppression?

The latest example is the war on Christmas. The Christian faith is enemy #1 to certain groups in this Country.

Yep, definitely too much Faux News.  Change the channel and put your tinfoil hat away man.  There is NO war on xmas.  There is, however, and attempt to include Jews, Muslims, and *gasp* even atheists in the celebration of the holidays.  Now, if you want to get into the real roots of many of the traditions, you'll have to actually take xianity out of most of it, because they were all 'borrowed' from previous, existing religious traditions.  

It sets moral rules and guidelines that some see as discrimination against some minority groups. ie; Gays.

And others.  Non-believers, Jews, etc. It also sets a pretty bad moral example in many places.  Fortunately, most societies in the world have gotten past those silly superstitions and myths and put together a more coherent, rational morality system.

Which is why (if you pay attention) You'll here a lot of whining about the much hated extremist Right Wing Christians. Not Jews, Muslims , or Buddists. Christians.

Well, yeah, in the US, it's the religious right that is slowly trying to convert the US into a true theocracy.  In the middle east, it's the muslims.  Oh, and since when did sticking up for ones rights become whining?  I guess all the founding fathers should have just sucked it up and taken one for the team eh?

You are free to practice any faith you like in this country, or none at all, Do not attempt to use the Constitution to deny my rights to practice mine. In the establishment clause it goes on to say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Oh please.  No one is trying to deny you the right to worship whatever myth you want.  Or is there a large scale concerted effort to shut down churches in your area??  

The thing many of us, religious and atheist are trying to prevent is the special treatment of people solely based on religion (Office of Faith Based Initiatives anyone?)  But the propaganda machine has spun 'no special treatment' into 'persecution and denying you the right to worship how you want' and even otherwise intelligent folk such as yourself seem to have fallen for it.

Oh, the section of the 14th amendment that pertains to this is:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This has been interpreted as applying the entire bill of rights the 'protection of law' to the state level.
There is a reason for this....many states were trying to do just that, establish state churches.

[Spitter]

Lazs' term is correct. Athiesm is a faith that there is no God. Lack of evidence does not logically prove non-existance. An illogical leap of faith is required to conclude the question one way or another.

Agnosticism is lack of faith in the existance. Atheism is a faith in the non-existance.

Wrong.  Try to learn something about it before demonstrating your ignorance in public.  Also, FFS, stop trying to tell us what we think!!  It's bad enough so many religious nutcases are trying to tell us was all what to think.  

A-theism - No theism, without theism. Lack of belief in the supernatural or divine.  

Agnosticism - without knowledge, or unknowable.  It is more like saying even if god(s) existed, we couldn't know it or have any way to divine it.  Just like the ants in your back yard can't comprehend you.  

Atheism is the ultimate lack of faith, using the word faith in the religious sense (to belief without reason).  

Would you have an issue if they stayed?

I have an issue if they go just due to all the legal costs in this stupid issue. I think the next judge should rule that the complaintant gets a thicker skin and a life. There are many more important issues.

Holden, that is a red herring.  The government changes the money all the time, mostly to try to foil counterfeiters.  There wouldn't be a legal cost of the religious backers didn't raise such a ruckus every time someone suggested going back tot he original, neutral stance.  It kind of puts a lie to all the 'ceremonial deism' excuses that the SCOTUS has been fond of the last couple of decades.

Oh, and why can't the ones who want to force their beliefs on others (you know, the xians) 'grow a thicker skin' and keep their damn religion where it belongs: in church, and out of the government.  Is your and their faith so weak that you need government support to survive? They already get a subsidized existence, simply based on the fact that they are religions.  

I still think that churches should be held to the same standards as secular charities.  Oh, wait, equal treatment is discrimination, I forgot.

Didnt Hitler and Nazis hate Christians too?

For someone who plays a WW2 game, you don't know much about it.  Hitler was raised catholic, and used the church and religion quite effectively (much like Shrub does now).  And the Nazi belt buckles had "Gott mit uns" inscribed on them.  I can show you a picture if you’d like.

Besides, that's another red herring and totally off topic.

If you do not have faith you are Agnostic.

If you believe that there is no God, then your faith is Athieism, as it is difficult to believe with no beliefs.

Gawdammit Holden, stop trying to tell us what we believe!!

Ok, fine, here goes:
1. Weak Atheism - lack of belief in god(s).  Just like lack of belief in unicorns leprechauns, and smart republicans.  

2. Strong Atheism - Denying the existence of god(s).  More rare, but still more logically sound than theism.  

3. Agnosticism - the view that humans can't know whether god(s) exist or not because they would be so unfathomable to us.  

Then there's various flavors of religion, from mono-theism (jews and muslims), to poly-theism (most xians, and hindus), to deists, pantheists, etc.  

Pantheism is actually much more wide spread than I would have thought, and most in the US don't even know what it is.

sorry RTR but you are wrong...

Nope, you are the one who is wrong.  See above.  And again, stop trying to tell me what I think.

A person who says that there is no god even tho he can not prove that to be true and has no real evidense... is basing his belief in athiesm in nothing more than pure faith.

No, if that was the case, your default position should be that you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, little green men, and the invisible dragon in my garage.  You can't prove any of them don't exist.

If where to believe the constitution is a valid document Gay marriage is legal in all 50 States.

You are correct, and they should be. Thanks for admitting that not allowing it is discrimination, and unconstitutional

An example: The maple tree. The seed has a wing that serves as an auto rotating helicopter that flies clear of the parent tree and uses the rotation to bury itself in the earth far enough from the tree to grow. This is clearly engineering and design... That doesn't take faith...it just makes far more sense than "it came from the primordial soup."

Oh, now we're going off into incompetent...err..I mean, intelligent design.  Again, you should learn a bit about science.  Because you are wrong.  Links available upon request.

Ignorance is for blind progressives (Liberals)...sooo. it would be impossible for an intellegent race (Conservatives) to travel to a distant Planet, Albeit in the far future, and create life on that planet...Holy Chit...that would make us get ready now "THE CREATOR". Of course Liberals on that planet would be running to the ACLU (Aliens civil liberties union) and demand they stop teaching the possibility of a CREATOR. They all know they came from "Gunk Soup".

See, this here statement shows how easy it is to use religion to demonize and dehumanize those who don't think the same way you do.  Similar to the way the leaders of the Rwanda genocide used religion and race as a tool to dehumanize those who were different and slaughter them by the thousands.  Links available upon request.
WRT 'In god we trust" and 'Under gawd" in the pledge:

They have been there since the founding of the nation.

Dude, you are so wrong you couldn't be more wrong if you tried, learn a little history.  

Using logic, prove the existance or nonexistance of God.

If you cannot, then your belief in the existance or nonexistance of God is not based on logic.

Using logic, prove the existence or nonexistence of Zeus.

If you cannot, then your belief in the existence or nonexistence of Zeus is not based on logic.
There, fixed it for you.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.   Yeah, there's a lot of xian apologetics that try to wriggle out of this simple axiom, but if you try and follow them you will (or should) wind up believing in all sorts of magic fairies.

Show me empirical evidence...irrefutable proof that life sprang from a primordial soup. You use the word deity..how about the Creator.

First: in science, there is no such thing as 'irrefutable proof' in science.  No theory is ever considered 100% proven, because we don't know how every little thing works.  Not even Gravitational Theory, which is less well supported than Evolutionary Theory.

Second:  for the actual evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org.  I recommend the FAQ as a good starting place.  I am also good friends with several world renowned paleontologist, micro-biologists, geologists, and a few others.  If you have any questions....

I am agnostic. I don't believe in God. I believe in evidence and logic.

1. You don’t even know what agnostic means.
2. You just broke on eof my industrial strength Irony meters.    You seem to know very little about logic, and you are definitely not very clued in about evidence.

Since we accept that our rights come from God (Creator) can be anyones God not just the Christian one even though God is the same in all great religions. We need it to remind us where are inaliable rights come from. Having our rights as free people coming from God in no way impedes your right to not believe in anything. Why does it bother you if it stays? Incidently can you think of anytime in your life religion has denied your rights to do or say anything you believe?

Ok, first, not everyone accepts that our ‘inalienable’ rights come from some creator.  Sure, it was the prevailing idea at the time, but the god of the most influential founders (with the notable exception of Patrick Henry, who really was a devout xian) was primarily deistic.  Look it up.  

Second, rights are not inalienable or absolute.  If you don’t believe me, ask one of the detainees at Gitmo. Our rights are granted by the constitution.  And if the government chooses not to adhere to that document, as the current administration has demonstrably not done, they are worth less than the paper it’s written on.

Third, it bothers me if it stays because of all the ignorance regarding its history.  Now, many (including several in this thread) are willing to let this little thing slide, because it’s ‘historical’, but they are completely ignorant of the actual history regarding this.  Another 50 years from now, when the christofascists have continued their historical revisionism ala David Barton, and spreading their lies via the pulpit, it will be even more ‘historical’.  And their foot will be even further in the proverbial door.  It’s the same strategy the IDiots (those pushing creationism in the guise of science) use to get their religious ideas into public schools.  (google ‘wedge document’ for proof, in their own words.)

Oh, and I can think of several times in my life when the rights of many of my friends have been infringed directly upon for purely religious reasons.  Yeah, I have gay friends.  Every opposition to their marriage has been based on religious motivation, and if it were challenged in front of a truly impartial judge, the sectarian motivation would be revealed for what it is, and it would be struck down.  

In order to get it truly banned, what are the Radical Religious Right (RRR) trying to do?  Amend the constitution.  What does that tell you?? That currently, it is unconstitutional.  Think about that until it sinks it…it’s really a profound point.

[Spitter]

Life can only come from life. They also falsified stem cell research..Snuppy ring a bell.

Dude, your ignorance of the current research, and science in general is showing again.  When was the last time you looked up the latest research on stem cells?  And what exactly was ‘falsified’?  Links please.  And if life can only come from life, as you so boldly proclaim, how did we get here?  Can you actually give a good, working definition of life?    I doubt it, since in science, it is a big, fuzzy gray area.  I’d be willing to nominate you for that Nobel prize though, as soon as you produce it.  

And that catches me up to page two…..More to come!

Cheers,
Spitter

[Spitter]

An activist Court is one that would ignore the fact that it violated the Constitution. Non activists judges read the Constitution...activist judges get "Vibes" They smoke a doobie and get eminations.

I call BS.  I’ve noticed a distinct trend when yahoos who don’t understand constitutional law spout off about ‘activist judges’.

Activist judges are those who make decision they disagree with, regardless of legal precedence, reasoning, or evidence.  

Judge Jones of the recent Dover case is a prime example.  As a matter of fact, the press release that many people had prepared if the decision went their way were all for praising the judge for his wisdom and clear thinking, but when the decision went the other way….you guessed it, the activist judge label was trotted out.

Yet more Faux News and RRR propaganda that works on the sheeple of the US.

How's this for basis....No one has ever created life without life. The reason, because it takes life to create life. You think that might be basic enough.

Again, wearing your ignorance on your sleeve??  Do you know what life is?  Can you define it scientifically?  Your knowledge is basic, that’s for sure.  Google abiogenesis.  Or if you prefer, I can provide some links to actual current research.  

Oh, and FYI, a cell is not the smallest unit needed for self-replication, the first step in creating life as we know it.  You want to talk with some biologists who are studying the topic?  I can point the way.

So where in agreement there is no reason to change the national motto.
Of course there's a snowballs chance in hell they ever will.

weasel, are you being deliberately obtuse, or just trying to stir the pot?  The national motto did change and the pledge did change in the 1950’s.  The changes were spearheaded by religious organizations, primarily, the Knights of Columbus.  Learn some history.

Creating life is impossible not a technical challenge...Creating good tasting American beer is a technical challenge.

As to the first part, you’re almost certainly wrong.  The current research being spearheaded at Stanford is pretty confident that they will have a major breakthrough in the next decade.  As to the second, that is probably impossible.  But then, I’m probably spoiled from living in Germany.

You know better than that...unconstitutional laws do get passed and that is why the SCOTUS exists: to ultimately determine the constitutionality of actions by the Legislative and Executive branches. That's balance of power.

Actually, you are incorrect.  Unconstitutional law get passed fairly regularly.  It’s only when they are challenged in court that they are reviewed for constitutionality.  

For instance, in the 1950s, many schools around the country made it mandatory for students to recite the pledge of allegiance.  That was finally challenged (by jehovah’s witnesses) and ruled unconstitutional because it infringed on their religious freedom.  A perfect example of what happens when one particular sectarian power gets some control of government.  Unfortunately, the ruling was very narrow, and the SCOTUS didn’t go the extra step and rule the inclusion of the words ‘under gawd’ unconstitutional, because they were afraid of the political backlash.  

So here we are 50 hears later, finally trying to get an honest court to review it without dodging it using the old ‘ceremonial deism’ defense.  

Ok, I’m done, don’t feel like dealing with the rest of the ignorance and people who won’t even listen.  

Some of you guys have more patience than me and are doing fine.  Good luck with that.

Cheers,
Spitter

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Congratulations. Twelve tons of insults, innuendo, and contrived B.S. in a Wall of Text. Sorry, too much drivel and crap to wade through.

Have a nice day.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Spitter
Gawdammit Holden, stop trying to tell us what we believe!!

Ok, fine, here goes:
1. Weak Atheism - lack of belief in god(s).  Just like lack of belief in unicorns leprechauns, and smart republicans.  

2. Strong Atheism - Denying the existence of god(s).  More rare, but still more logically sound than theism.  

3. Agnosticism - the view that humans can't know whether god(s) exist or not because they would be so unfathomable to us.  

Quotes from Webster's Online:

Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable.

As no evidence proves nothing, the question of existance of God is presently unknowable.  Hence agnosticism is the endpoint of logic on this question. Faith that either conclusion is established fact is illogical.

I await your next wall of rambling text.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Spitter
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know better than that...unconstitutional laws do get passed and that is why the SCOTUS exists: to ultimately determine the constitutionality of actions by the Legislative and Executive branches. That's balance of power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, you are incorrect. Unconstitutional law get passed fairly regularly. It’s only when they are challenged in court that they are reviewed for constitutionality.

LOL...your statement just agreed with mine.  Re-read what I said:

Crow said: unconstitutional laws do get passed
Fate said: Unconstitutional law get passed fairly regularly

Sounds the same...am I missing something?

Crow said: SCOTUS exists: to ultimately determine the constitutionality of actions by the Legislative and Executive branches

Fate said: It’s only when they are challenged in court that they are reviewed for constitutionality

Never expanded on how or when they ultimately determine constitutionality in this post...but if you read all the thread you would see:

Originally posted by crowMAW
Also understand that the SCOTUS does not send out proclomations from the bench whenever it feels like it.  It rules based on a pleading that requires both an act and an injured party.  The situation you describe above would only come about should the Executive or Legislative Branch inact a policy or law that curbs freedom of speech and someone sued to have their full freedom's restored.

And:

Originally posted by crowMAW
It has always been the case that sometimes laws are passed that are unconstitutional.  They stay on the books, and sometimes enforced, until a case is submitted and the SCOTUS agrees to render a decision with its opinion.  Unconstitutional laws exist so long as no one has enough of an interest to file a judicial complaint...or if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.

But welcome to the bbs.  

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by lazs2
I can not imagine the founders using the phrase "touching religion" but..

Click on the link and you can see the Congressional Record surrounding the 1st Amendment:

The Complete Bill of Rights

[lazs2]

spitter... nice speeches but... you seem to prove my points that you are trying to make a statement with your athiesm... it is your religion.  

You mix science and faith just as religious people do... you say science seems to point your way but... you have "faith" that no future science will ever prove your "faith" in athiesm wrong... this is silly.  You are being silly.

If you were to take the agnostic view then you could spout all the science you want... A scientist doesn't go in with "faith" that something doesn't exist... If someone in the 14th century were to say that he thought everything was made of little tiny particles so small that they could not be seen... Your "faith" as a scientist would have to say they guy was a religions nut.

The constitution says what it says... It says nothing about nativity scenes or "in god we trust"  it simply does not allow for the establishment of A religion.... It would seem that so long as the supreme court does not intervene and the people want a generic god in public documents.... then that is fine with our constitution.

That is all there is too it.   sorry it offends your faith but it is a small thing.  It does not affect your life in the least except how you take it.   Just as those who lobby to remove the gerneric god from money don't really affect me unless I let em...

I don't care who wins so long as it is the will of the people.  I do care if the supremes change the constituion by interpretation tho... that is why I am against flag burning as "free speech" or "hate speech" not being protected under the first.   I don not favor constitution by fad.

lazs

[lazs2]

crow... I am reading it and the vast weight of all the discussion seems to be centered on not allowing the government to establish a state government.   There is little or no evidence that the founders objected to the the word "god".   The opposite is true.

lazs

[Spitter]

Lazs2:spitter... nice speeches but... you seem to prove my points that you are trying to make a statement with your athiesm... it is your religion.

Yeah, I know this old saw gets brought up anytime an atheist actually has the temerity to challenge religious discrimination and bogotry.  Actually, atheism is only a religion in the sense that is is as constitutionally protected as any religious belief (I'd have to look up the court cite if you want it.).  In other words, non-belief is protected, which means that according to our laws, the first amendment does indeed offer freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.

You mix science and faith just as religious people do... you say science seems to point your way but... you have "faith" that no future science will ever prove your "faith" in athiesm wrong... this is silly. You are being silly.

No.  You are incorrect.  I don't mix science and faith.  If my current beliefs are shown to be wrong by a major change in a scientific paradigm, then my beliefs will change with them. That's the difference between a worldview based on reality, and one based on a nearly static, 2000 year old dogma.  

If you were to take the agnostic view then you could spout all the science you want... A scientist doesn't go in with "faith" that something doesn't exist... If someone in the 14th century were to say that he thought everything was made of little tiny particles so small that they could not be seen... Your "faith" as a scientist would have to say they guy was a religions nut.

No, my 'faith' as you call it is really more of skepticism. I would have said 'prove it'. or at least 'show me good evidence for it that isn't better explained by simpler, more natural means.  That's the difference between my skepticism, and religious faith. Mine is open to change based on evidence.  Religious nutters simply re-interpret or deny the evidence based on their pre-concieved notions.  

The constitution says what it says... It says nothing about nativity scenes or "in god we trust" it simply does not allow for the establishment of A religion.... It would seem that so long as the supreme court does not intervene and the people want a generic god in public documents.... then that is fine with our constitution.

No, that is also wrong, the constitution 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; "

No law respecting an establishment of religion.  That is not the same thing as an establishment of religion.  The framers of the constitution were very careful and selective with their wording. It is a subtle, but very profound, difference.  


Cheers,
Spitter