Posted on 07/03/2006 11:36:51 AM PDT by Pukin Dog
Edited on 07/03/2006 12:00:01 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Thanks for this ping!!! You are right, there is still hope.
bump
San Diego voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot proposition ..... But a California Superior Court judge found the proposition to be unconstitutional.
So one POS can buy a judge (also a POS) and can inflict their wishes on the the millions? Do I have this right?
Agreed. As a non-Christian, I have no problem with that cross, or other public displays of religion, so long as the First Amendment as it is literally written is upheld.
I have always wondered about some atheists. I can see where a religious person who is weak in their faith might feel the need to avoid other religions, but an atheist? These characters seem to be weak in their lack of faith!
Personally, I'm strong enough in my faith that if I were frog-marched into church every Sunday and forced at gunpoint to recite the Lord's Prayer and sing Old Hundred, it wouldn't change what's in my heart.
"Our Bill of Rights expressly forbids the Establishment of a State Religion, and that includes Atheism."
Excellent! Is that original, and if so, may I quote you?
These are some pretty muddy waters. Also, you left off the second half,
". . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I see where these "entanglements" can cause problems. One example is the practice of exempting churches from local property taxes as a public service. All well and good- but this puts the State in the untenable position of deciding what is and is not a church. An example might be where a pagan group purchases a plot of land specifically for religious use, but are unable to get the tax exemption since it is not a brick-and-mortar church.
Another trouble spot is allowing clergy to simultaneously perform a civil marriage during the religious ceremony. Makes perfect sense- why make a second trip to see a judge after you've already seen the preacher? But again, this puts the State in the untenable position of deciding who is and is not a clergyperson.
Yes, it is, and I would like everyone to understand it and repeat it.
EXCELLENT
Actually, I think this means a great deal. If Kennedy is on board, its already 5-4 for the good guys.
I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong here, seriously!
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.