Skip to comments.
Court of Appeals: Constitution "does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
American Family Association of Michigan ^
| December 21, 2005
| American Family Association of Michigan
Posted on 12/21/2005 1:12:17 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 321-332 next last
To: rwfromkansas
You left out the part of Madison's explanation about prohibiting infringement of the rights of conscience. If the idea of a man acknowledging his duty to obey the conscience God gave him is that abhorrent to you - then you must worship at the Church of Satan.
To: jwh_Denver
Is there any government authority over religion in the Constitution?
To: Always Right
Even if the Department of Religious Advice did attempted to establish religious doctrine, but did not use coercion, it would be permissible under your no coercion test - right?
To: FredFlash
Read the Reynolds (1878) case. Religious opinion is virutally unlimited, but not practice.
264
posted on
01/16/2006 1:01:41 PM PST
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: Always Right
A mandate carries a punishment for disobeying it, right? So the government can suggest, encourage, facilitate, urge or direct as long as no punishment is involved.
To: AFA-Michigan
Wow! They put one right back to the anti-American ACLU! Love it.
266
posted on
01/16/2006 1:05:55 PM PST
by
BamaAndy
(Heart & Iron--the story of America through an ordinary family. ISBN: 1-4137-5397-3)
To: AFA-Michigan
Wow! They put one right back to the anti-American ACLU! Love it.
267
posted on
01/16/2006 1:07:14 PM PST
by
BamaAndy
(Heart & Iron--the story of America through an ordinary family. ISBN: 1-4137-5397-3)
To: FredFlash
Even if the Department of Religious Advice did attempted to establish religious doctrine, but did not use coercion, it would be permissible under your no coercion test - right? It fails the basic test of Congress trying to establish a religion, it does not fail the coercion test. Congress has no right to pass any laws that effect the establishment of religion.
To: FredFlash
In response to the simple factual statement "The words 'separation of church and state' do not appear in the U.S. Constitution"...
Flash impresses all with the raw force of his intellect. No excuse me, his raw ability to engage in ad hominem attack.
He labels that simple, indisputable statement of fact regarding the Constitution "dimwitted" and "pathetic" and its author (that's me) "a sucker"...
Flash is obviously struggling with some deep-seated, apparently very emotional issues that go beyond a logical, rational, and truthful discussion on this topic.
Flash observes that just as "separation of church and state" is found nowhere in our Constitution, neither is "separation of Satan and state." This enlightenment is both correct and irrelevant.
But gotta admit I'm still not clear, Flash. Since you characterized my statement of indisputable fact as "dimwitted" and "pathetic," are you disputing the truth of the statement? Do you purport to show us that those words do appear in the Constitution?
To: Always Right
What about the Cop who stops you for a traffic offense and suggests that you recite an affirmation of a belief in no infant baptism? He is part of the government and you can just say no if you don't care for the advice. So this practice is ok, right?
To: FredFlash
A mandate carries a punishment for disobeying it, right? So the government can suggest, encourage, facilitate, urge or direct as long as no punishment is involved. Not at the legislative level. Executive proclaclamations, for instance, do not violate any rule.
To: FredFlash
What about the Cop who stops you for a traffic offense and suggests that you recite an affirmation of a belief in no infant baptism? While I appreciate this excercize of the obsurdity, could you please stick a little more to reality? The act of pulling someone over is coercive, so it seems irrelevant.
To: Irontank
I only figure it out recently. I ain't that smart. I was misinformed for years.
To: Irontank
Yep - it was Madison 10 to Ellsworth 3 on the scoreboard - I was a surprised to find that ten of states, in 1789, were 99% of the way to separation - meaning no legal Establishments of religion, no religious test and no civil disabilities - There were religious tests on the books but they were just ignored - In some state's only Protestants or Christians were guaranteed equal protection on paper but there is no case of any non Christian being denied protection - Some state courts decided cases as if the religion causes applied to the states and were the law of the land - From 1789 to the Civil War is where you find Strict Separation - It all changed with Lincoln's Proclamation and "In God We Trust" on the money.
To: rwfromkansas
You should have examined the evidence when you were there. You will be disappointed.
To: rwfromkansas
show me evidence that Jefferson INTRODUCED THE SABBATH BILL with Madison and did not attempt later to remove it when the First Amendment was passed.
To: fanfan
To: Always Right
What if it was the clerk at tax office?
To: Always Right
Where did President Richard Nixon get the moral authority to give me religious advice?
To: AFA-Michigan
Show me where the authority to establish an Air Force is found in the Constitution?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 321-332 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson