The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: EdinVA on February 21, 2020, 03:14:48 pm
-
The federal appeals court ruled the cross is constitutional, noting it has become “embedded in the fabric of the Pensacola community†and that removing it could “strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.â€
Four individuals, represented by the American Humanist Association and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, sued the city in 2016, demanding the cross be torn down.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-cross-pensacola-christian-atheist-court (https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-cross-pensacola-christian-atheist-court)
-
IIRC, this was the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. So there's still the USSC for the haters to appeal to, which I think they will.
-
I have a special antipathy for these people. NO ONE was ever hurt by a cross standing on public property, yet they are relentless in their efforts to remove them.
What kind of mind obsesses about removing a symbol of love and redemption?
-
I have a special antipathy for these people. NO ONE was ever hurt by a cross standing on public property, yet they are relentless in their efforts to remove them.
What kind of mind obsesses about removing a symbol of love and redemption?
These are the same people that are triggered by picture of a firearm, need safe spaces, and still sit sipping hot chocolater in their mommies basement while wearing a onesie.
-
Four individuals, represented by the American Humanist Association
Humanism is a religion.
-
I have a special antipathy for these people. NO ONE was ever hurt by a cross standing on public property, yet they are relentless in their efforts to remove them.
What kind of mind obsesses about removing a symbol of love and redemption?
Minds that have way, way too much time on their hands. The rest are working and don't have time to get "triggered".
-
I have a special antipathy for these people. NO ONE was ever hurt by a cross standing on public property, yet they are relentless in their efforts to remove them.
What kind of mind obsesses about removing a symbol of love and redemption?
@skeeter
You mean symbols of Islam? How about Satan Worshippers? The "spaceship crowd",whose title I can't remember? Or any other group of loons that gather around a coffee table and decide to call themselves a religion
This is America,bubba. If you let one religion do it,you have to allow ALL "religions" to do it.
I understand you are thinking from the POV of Christianity,but there are literally hundreds of "religions" in this country. Are you ready to allow them all to put up symbols of their faith on public property?
-
@skeeter
You mean symbols of Islam? How about Satan Worshippers? The "spaceship crowd",whose title I can't remember? Or any other group of loons that gather around a coffee table and decide to call themselves a religion
This is America,bubba. If you let one religion do it,you have to allow ALL "religions" to do it.
I understand you are thinking from the POV of Christianity,but there are literally hundreds of "religions" in this country. Are you ready to allow them all to put up symbols of their faith on public property?
No, I'm not. Nor am I proposing to put up crosses all over the landscape.
I think anyone who makes it their life's work to take down monuments put up decades ago in this once predominantly Christian country to honor fallen soldiers or the nation's sacrifice in general because they, in their warped estimation, feel its constitutes a threat of some kind is demented and should seek help. But we shouldn't be compelled honor their wishes.
-
These so-called Atheists are in all reality Faux Atheists. I can get away with calling them out because not only am I a true Atheist, butt I also personally know the founders of Freedom From Religion Foundation. They claim to not recognize religion butt their religion is Facsist Statism. They consider the Facsisr State to be their god. Anyone that doesn't bow an' worship the State is to be crushed. An' they use the courts to spread an' enforce their twisted doctrine.
Unlike them, a True Atheist is not offended by other religions or beliefs. A True Atheist does not proselytize or force their beliefs on others. A True Atheist unnerstanz that when someone sez "bless you" or "you're in my prayers" it is a sign of caring an' neither malice or ignorance. I actually thank my Christian friends when they offer me a Merry Christmas or Happy Easter. It means that they wish me well an' not ill. Unlike these foul mood Faux Atheists who get offended by symbols. I've never been harmed by a cross, which though it was a means of execution has been used for centuries as a symbol of love an' compassion.
I guess the Faux-Atheists become offended because they have absolutely no love an' compassion within themselves.
:pop41:
-
These so-called Atheists are in all reality Faux Atheists. I can get away with calling them out because not only am I a true Atheist, butt I also personally know the founders of Freedom From Religion Foundation. They claim to not recognize religion butt their religion is Facsist Statism. They consider the Facsisr State to be their god. Anyone that doesn't bow an' worship the State is to be crushed. An' they use the courts to spread an' enforce their twisted doctrine.
Unlike them, a True Atheist is not offended by other religions or beliefs. A True Atheist does not proselytize or force their beliefs on others. A True Atheist unnerstanz that when someone sez "bless you" or "you're in my prayers" it is a sign of caring an' neither malice or ignorance. I actually thank my Christian friends when they offer me a Merry Christmas or Happy Easter. It means that they wish me well an' not ill. Unlike these foul mood Faux Atheists who get offended by symbols. I've never been harmed by a cross, which though it was a means of execution has been used for centuries as a symbol of love an' compassion.
I guess the Faux-Atheists become offended because they have absolutely no love an' compassion within themselves.
:pop41:
That makes perfect sense to me.
-
I think anyone who makes it their life's work to take down monuments put up decades ago in this once predominantly Christian country to honor fallen soldiers or the nation's sacrifice in general because they, in their warped estimation, feel its constitutes a threat of some kind is demented and should seek help. But we shouldn't be compelled honor their wishes.
@skeeter
There can be no question of that,and what NEEDS to be done is have federal laws passed that protect historic public cemeteries/similar plots from destruction or modification.
Or,as a step in that direction,there are already laws on books against desecration of a cemetery/grave yard,so why not add public tributes to the dead to that list? There HAS to be some hungry lawyers out there that would like to have a little bit of teebee face time for free advertising that would be thrilled to take up that fight. Do it on the state level first because there is power in numbers,and then make it federal.
Frankly,this is such "low-hanging fruit" from the lawsuit POV,I am shocked it hasn't already happened.
-
These so-called Atheists are in all reality Faux Atheists. I can get away with calling them out because not only am I a true Atheist, butt I also personally know the founders of Freedom From Religion Foundation. They claim to not recognize religion butt their religion is Facsist Statism. They consider the Facsisr State to be their god. Anyone that doesn't bow an' worship the State is to be crushed. An' they use the courts to spread an' enforce their twisted doctrine.
Unlike them, a True Atheist is not offended by other religions or beliefs. A True Atheist does not proselytize or force their beliefs on others. A True Atheist unnerstanz that when someone sez "bless you" or "you're in my prayers" it is a sign of caring an' neither malice or ignorance. I actually thank my Christian friends when they offer me a Merry Christmas or Happy Easter. It means that they wish me well an' not ill. Unlike these foul mood Faux Atheists who get offended by symbols. I've never been harmed by a cross, which though it was a means of execution has been used for centuries as a symbol of love an' compassion.
I guess the Faux-Atheists become offended because they have absolutely no love an' compassion within themselves.
:pop41:
@mortarman :yowsa: :yowsa: :yowsa: to every word you wrote!
I will only add that atheism might as well be recognized as an actual religion these days,because just like the nuttier religious loons,they are just as rabid about insisting that everybody else follow THEIR beliefs.
I admit to having gotten so frustrated over people just not listening and closing their minds to me the instant I say I am an atheist,and automatically lump me in with loons like Madaline O'hara that I don't even mention I am an atheist anymore. I just say I'm "not religious" and avoid getting mad trying to reason with closed minds.
Unfortunately,live and let live doesn't seem to exist much on either side of that argument. Everybody today it too radical to listen to reason.
-
That makes perfect sense to me.
It does to me too, skeets. @mortarman Makes excellent points.
Most people in these stories that call themselves "Atheists" are really militant "anti-Theists." The "A-" prefix suggests "indifference," not "revulsion." To my limited, rigid mind, "A-Theist" translates to "I don't give a snot, and that's OK."
For a philosopher, I guess that would be closer to agnostic than it is to crushing everybody else's talismans.
-
@skeeter
There can be no question of that,and what NEEDS to be done is have federal laws passed that protect historic public cemeteries/similar plots from destruction or modification.
Or,as a step in that direction,there are already laws on books against desecration of a cemetery/grave yard,so why not add public tributes to the dead to that list? There HAS to be some hungry lawyers out there that would like to have a little bit of teebee face time for free advertising that would be thrilled to take up that fight. Do it on the state level first because there is power in numbers,and then make it federal.
Frankly,this is such "low-hanging fruit" from the lawsuit POV,I am shocked it hasn't already happened.
Youre right, that shouldve been done already.
I recall a few years back some demented soul succeeded in removing the cross at Schofield Barrack’s Kolekole pass on Oahu which was erected to honor WWI dead and had great historical significance. That kind of thing really pizzes me off.
-
It does to me too, skeets. @mortarman Makes excellent points.
Most people in these stories that call themselves "Atheists" are really militant "anti-Theists." The "A-" prefix suggests "indifference," not "revulsion." To my limited, rigid mind, "A-Theist" translates to "I don't give a snot, and that's OK."
For a philosopher, I guess that would be closer to agnostic than it is to crushing everybody else's talismans.
@Cyber Liberty
When you are talking to the faithful,that IS the "tag" you want to use unless you want to get into an endless arguement. Use the word "atheist" and they immediately think you are attacking them,and there is nothing you can say to make them change their minds.
"Agnostic" is how I identify myself to the faithful,and it really is more accurate because it applies to all religions,not just Christianity.
-
Youre right, that shouldve been done already.
I recall a few years back some demented soul succeeded in removing the cross at Schofield Barrack’s Kolekole pass on Oahu which was erected to honor WWI dead and had great historical significance. That kind of thing really pizzes me off.
@skeeter
Yeah,you ain't by yourself on that one.
-
@skeeter
You mean symbols of Islam? How about Satan Worshippers? The "spaceship crowd",whose title I can't remember? Or any other group of loons that gather around a coffee table and decide to call themselves a religion
This is America,bubba. If you let one religion do it,you have to allow ALL "religions" to do it.
I understand you are thinking from the POV of Christianity,but there are literally hundreds of "religions" in this country. Are you ready to allow them all to put up symbols of their faith on public property?
I don't think that is right @sneakypete
It is freedom of religion, and I don't think that plausibly extends all the way to the ground.
I think that a community is free to express itself, or humanism is imposed. Even a county and state should likewise be treated as its citizens define it, or another morality is imposed (namely again, humanism). If you don't like it, move somewhere else.
As it is, The feral government is the one tearing out the 10 commandments from in front of courthouses and off of school walls - over the objection of the community. The feral government removes prayer and religious studies from the schools and community events, imposing humanism in its stead, again, against the desire of the community.
That is in FACT the imposition of religion in its own right.
-
I think that a community is free to express itself, or humanism is imposed. Even a county and state should likewise be treated as its citizens define it, or another morality is imposed (namely again, humanism). If you don't like it, move somewhere else.
As it is, The feral government is the one tearing out the 10 commandments from in front of courthouses and off of school walls - over the objection of the community. The feral government removes prayer and religious studies from the schools and community events, imposing humanism in its stead, again, against the desire of the community.
That is in FACT the imposition of religion in its own right.
Agree 100 %. We as members of a society have the right to mold and shape our society as we see fit under the confines of our Constitution. And our First Amendment places restriction on the power of the federal government. It is not an expansion of power.
-
I don't think that is right @sneakypete
It is freedom of religion, and I don't think that plausibly extends all the way to the ground.
Ok,but I think it does. It was a freedom the FF's thought it was important enough to specifically guarantee in the Bill of Rights. You can NOT allow ONE religion to have more rights in a free country than you do other religions. If it's good for one,it's good for all of them
I think that a community is free to express itself, or humanism is imposed.
Well,"humanism" is,IMHO,just another form of religion. Humanists have ever right Catholics,for instance,have in America. Which includes the right to be wrong. We ALL get to make our own choices about what to believe and what to not believe. Ain't it wonderful?
Even a county and state should likewise be treated as its citizens define it, or another morality is imposed (namely again, humanism).
I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say,there.
If you don't like it, move somewhere else.
Ahhh,but in America,the people you call "Humanists" have the RIGHT to tell YOU the same thing. That's the way freedom works.
As it is, The feral government is the one tearing out the 10 commandments from in front of courthouses and off of school walls - over the objection of the community.
Not really. The people have a right to petition the feral goobermint to stop that,and if some ambitious and greedy lawyer follows my suggestion,they can sue the feral goovermint and DEMAND that law be changed because it is denigrating an historic emblem.
Even though I don't really have a dog in this fight,I suspect that is due more to the savvy politicians figuring out they can pull in more donation money to let those laws stay in effect to they can pretend to want to repeal them,than they would ever get from actually doing it. Then again,I am probably more cynical than most people.
I can tell you with 100 percent truth that as an agnostic,*I* personally have no problem at all with religious symbols on historic public buildings or land,and no problem at all with them being displayed anywhere on private property.
The feral government removes prayer and religious studies from the schools and community events,
Nope! Did NOT happen and can NOT happen. What they did,and rightly so or you would be kneeling on a prayer rug facing mecca today at things like HS graduation ceremonies today if what you THINK you want were to come to pass. Once again,if you make prayer mandatory,you are making ALL prayer mandatory.
As for YOU praying even today,who is going to stop you from speaking to your God in your mind? Does anyone try to stop you from entering a public building carrying a Bible and wearing a cross? Get back to me when that happens.
imposing humanism in its stead, again, against the desire of the community.
WRONG! Maybe against a SMALL segment of the local community,but your church damn sure doesn't speak for other churches or citizens that are agnostics or members of other faiths.
That is in FACT the imposition of religion in its own right.
Not even close. What you are calling for is for YOUR faith to be dominate over all others,and in fact,forced upon those who don't want it.
-
Agree 100 %. We as members of a society have the right to mold and shape our society as we see fit under the confines of our Constitution. And our First Amendment places restriction on the power of the federal government. It is not an expansion of power.
Precisely. Federalism demands self-government. That means, as much as is humanly possible, government belongs closest to the people.
But more importantly, if the federal government is denying the people their religion as expressed, and imposing another morality in it's stead, That is EXACTLY what the Constitution is meant to prevent.
The federal government IS imposing a nationwide religion.
-
You mean symbols of Islam? How about Satan Worshippers? The "spaceship crowd",whose title I can't remember? Or any other group of loons that gather around a coffee table and decide to call themselves a religion
It should be left up to the local society. If the citizens of my community vote to put an islamic crescent on the front of city hall, a satanic symbol in every school classroom, or hold some gaia festival on the courthouse square, then that is their right. And there is nothing in Amendment I that empowers the federal government to deny them that right at the point of a gun.
-
Ok,but I think it does. It was a freedom the FF's thought it was important enough to specifically guarantee in the Bill of Rights. You can NOT allow ONE religion to have more rights in a free country than you do other religions. If it's good for one,it's good for all of them
@sneakypete
But that is exactly what is happening. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is imposing Humanism, favoring humanism, indoctrinating our youth in Humanism.
Well,"humanism" is,IMHO,just another form of religion. Humanists have ever right Catholics,for instance,have in America. Which includes the right to be wrong. We ALL get to make our own choices about what to believe and what to not believe. Ain't it wonderful?
But that is just it - We do NOT get to make our own choices. The federal government is imposing Humanism.
Not really. The people have a right to petition the feral goobermint to stop that,and if some ambitious and greedy lawyer follows my suggestion,they can sue the feral goovermint and DEMAND that law be changed because it is denigrating an historic emblem.
Too Late - It has already been done nationwide. I was there the day they tore the 10 commandments out of in front of the courthouse. I was in that fight. I remember when the 10 commandments came down off the walls in public school.
Nope! Did NOT happen and can NOT happen. What they did,and rightly so or you would be kneeling on a prayer rug facing mecca today at things like HS graduation ceremonies today if what you THINK you want were to come to pass. Once again,if you make prayer mandatory,you are making ALL prayer mandatory.
YES, IT DID HAPPEN. Nationwide. Federally imposed.
Not even close. What you are calling for is for YOUR faith to be dominate over all others,and in fact,forced upon those who don't want it.
I am not forcing you to live in my community, my county, or my state. I am imposing nothing on you.
If you don't like it, get together with like-minded folks and start your own community. Move there. Be happy.
-
It should be left up to the local society. If the citizens of my community vote to put an islamic crescent on the front of city hall, a satanic symbol in every school classroom, or hold some gaia festival on the courthouse square, then that is their right. And there is nothing in Amendment I that empowers the federal government to deny them that right at the point of a gun.
@Hoodat
So you are saying it is ok to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater?
-
@sneakypete
But that is exactly what is happening. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is imposing Humanism, favoring humanism, indoctrinating our youth in Humanism.
But that is just it - We do NOT get to make our own choices. The federal government is imposing Humanism.
Are you a human?
-
Are you a human?
What does that have to do with humanism?
-
What does that have to do with humanism?
@roamer_1
Uhhhhh......
-
@roamer_1
Uhhhhh......
What, you think that just because it has the word human in it it's immediately endorsable?
Put it this way: liberals, marxists, and socialist all endorse humanism with the state being the optimal order of all things human. Still like it? Still want that imposed upon our children?
-
What, you think that just because it has the word human in it it's immediately endorsable?
Put it this way: liberals, marxists, and socialist all endorse humanism with the state being the optimal order of all things human.
@roamer_1
Not true. In FACT,the core of leftism is to DEHUMANIZE the population to the point where "the state" is more important than the people.
Still like it? Still want that imposed upon our children?
"Hits fore de chil-runs!",huh?
As opposed to having YOUR religious views imposed on the children? What is the difference between a secular police state and a religious police state?
-
Not true. In FACT,the core of leftism is to DEHUMANIZE the population to the point where "the state" is more important than the people.
@sneakypete
Now you're catching on. Welcome to humanism.
"Hits fore de chil-runs!",huh?
Ultimately, he yes it is. My right to raise my children as I see fit, in a community that sees things as I do.
As opposed to having YOUR religious views imposed on the children? What is the difference between a secular police state and a religious police state?
Who is speaking of a religious police state? I am speaking of communities counties and states that are free to choose to govern as they will. I am not imposing a police state from 3000 miles away like you seem to be okay with. If you don't like it, move to another state. One that is more in line with the way you think. That's what Federalism is all about.
-
@Hoodat
So you are saying it is ok to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater?
From the federal government's standpoint, yes. Which is why there is no federal law that outlaws shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. (See Amendment I)
-
From the federal government's standpoint, yes. Which is why there is no federal law that outlaws shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. (See Amendment I)
There aer limits on the 1st Amendment, ever hear of libel and slander?
-
There aer limits on the 1st Amendment, ever hear of libel and slander?
There is no federal law against libel or slander. (See Amendment I)
-
From the federal government's standpoint, yes. Which is why there is no federal law that outlaws shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. (See Amendment I)
@Hoodat
ROFLMAO! That's because it is a local matter,not a feral matter. There is,IN FACT,laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. They are state and local laws,not feral laws.
-
@Hoodat
ROFLMAO! That's because it is a local matter,not a feral matter.
As is the cross in Florida. Is is a local matter, not a federal matter.
-
As is the cross in Florida. Is is a local matter, not a federal matter.
@Hoodat
Nope. Religious issues are more of a Constitutional issue,and shouting "FIRE!" is a public safety issue.
-
Frankly as far as the issue of the cross an' any other religious symbols an' their display are concerned I feel the matter was settled on Dec. 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The gubmint does not have the right to establish a state religion. Nor does it have the right to prohibit the free practice of religion. If that religion includes the display of symbols, well the gubmint cannot prohibit it. It's right there in the country's operating manual. As far as I know, the country's warranty is still in effect.
:pop41:
-
Frankly as far as the issue of the cross an' any other religious symbols an' their display are concerned I feel the matter was settled on Dec. 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The gubmint does not have the right to establish a state religion. Nor does it have the right to prohibit the free practice of religion. If that religion includes the display of symbols, well the gubmint cannot prohibit it. It's right there in the country's operating manual. As far as I know, the country's warranty is still in effect.
:pop41:
@mortarman
I'm with ya on that one.
Of course the flip side is we also have freedom FROM enforced religion. They are two sides of the same "freedom coin".
-
@mortarman
I'm with ya on that one.
Of course the flip side is we also have freedom FROM enforced religion. They are two sides of the same "freedom coin".
As far as I am concerned as long as your faith does not require you to harm the innocent of torture small fur bearing animals, knock your self out. But don't demand that I join it under penalty of death.
-
The federal gubmint does not have the right to establish a state federal religion. Nor does it have the right to prohibit the free practice of religion. If that religion includes the display of symbols, well the federal gubmint cannot prohibit it. It's right there in the country's operating manual. As far as I know, the country's warranty is still in effect.
Just to clarify. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell the State of Florida what to to in the matters of speech, press, assembly, religion, or petition. None. Zero.
-
@Hoodat
Religious issues are more of a Constitutional issue,
No, they are not. Amendment I states that the federal government should have zero involvement. It should be left up to Florida.
-
Frankly as far as the issue of the cross an' any other religious symbols an' their display are concerned I feel the matter was settled on Dec. 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The gubmint does not have the right to establish a state religion. Nor does it have the right to prohibit the free practice of religion. If that religion includes the display of symbols, well the gubmint cannot prohibit it. It's right there in the country's operating manual. As far as I know, the country's warranty is still in effect.
:pop41:
The FEDERAL government has no such right. I do not believe that prohibition goes all the way to the ground. I don't think it can.
There is no moral neutral. If the government is not practicing one religion, it is practicing another, by the absolute definition.
-
@mortarman
I'm with ya on that one.
Of course the flip side is we also have freedom FROM enforced religion. They are two sides of the same "freedom coin".
There is no such thing @sneakypete
Bob Dylan got that right - You've Gotta Serve Somebody.
And you do.
-
There is no such thing @sneakypete
@roamer_1
That is only true if you are a natural slave.
Bob Dylan got that right - You've Gotta Serve Somebody.
And you do.
I serve me,and those few people I choose to pick as friends.
-
Amendment I does not grant rights. It only places a restriction on the power of the federal government.
-
Amendment I does not grant rights. It only places a restriction on the power of the federal government.
@Hoodat
Exactly. Government can only recognize pre-existing rights,they can't create them. They can restrict rights to a certain degree when it is in the pubic interest,though. Even then it is recognized as a restriction on rights,not a ban,
-
@Hoodat
Exactly. Government can only recognize pre-existing rights,they can't create them. They can restrict rights to a certain degree when it is in the pubic interest,though. Even then it is recognized as a restriction on rights,not a ban,
Interesting. SO if the federal government decides that outlawing free speech, prohibiting assembly, and banning the free exercise of religion are in the public interest, they can then toss the Constitution in the trash and inhibit these rights? You can't have it both ways here. The same First Amendment that prohibits the federal government from restricting free speech, inhibiting a free press, or banning assembly also prohibits the federal government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion. Thus, the federal government has zero standing when it comes to banning school prayer, teaching theology in public schools, or declaring that evolution is a theory. It is only because of the tyranny of the judicial branch that the First Amendment is no longer followed. (See: Lemon v. Kurtzman).
I strongly suggest you reread the first five words of Amendment I. It places a restriction on the federal government ONLY - not state governments.
-
Interesting. SO if the federal government decides that outlawing free speech, prohibiting assembly, and banning the free exercise of religion are in the public interest, they can then toss the Constitution in the trash and inhibit these rights? You can't have it both ways here. The same First Amendment that prohibits the federal government from restricting free speech, inhibiting a free press, or banning assembly also prohibits the federal government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion. Thus, the federal government has zero standing when it comes to banning school prayer, teaching theology in public schools, or declaring that evolution is a theory. It is only because of the tyranny of the judicial branch that the First Amendment is no longer followed. (See: Lemon v. Kurtzman).
I strongly suggest you reread the first five words of Amendment I. It places a restriction on the federal government ONLY - not state governments.
'xactly right. As I have said before. The Constitution is the operators manuel for the gubmint an' if those charged with running things fail to follow those instructions therein, they should be removed from that responsibility.
:pop41:
-
Interesting. SO if the federal government decides that outlawing free speech, prohibiting assembly, and banning the free exercise of religion are in the public interest, they can then toss the Constitution in the trash and inhibit these rights?
@Hoodat
Don't be a fool. You know better than that,and you know that wasn't what I wrote.
You can't have it both ways here.
And I am not going to let you get away with playing the One Dimensional Game,either. It's the old "Can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater thing.
The same First Amendment that prohibits the federal government from restricting free speech, inhibiting a free press, or banning assembly also prohibits the federal government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion.
That's not true either,and you know it. There are laws,and rightly so,that prohibit religious loons from putting boom boxes in belfry's and broadcasting religious sermons for everyone to hear,regardless of their religious viewpoints. Just like there are laws that keep fundies from harassing travelers in public places like airports.
But you just go ahead and claim the government does NOT have this right,and when you do so,let me know what neighborhood you live in so I can contact the nearest Mosque and tell them there is a neighborhood they need to reach out to with their calls to prayer.
Thus, the federal government has zero standing when it comes to banning school prayer, teaching theology in public schools, or declaring that evolution is a theory. It is only because of the tyranny of the judicial branch that the First Amendment is no longer followed. (See: Lemon v. Kurtzman).
Ok,you are insane. Thanks for clearing that up.
I strongly suggest you reread the first five words of Amendment I. It places a restriction on the federal government ONLY - not state governments.
Are you REALLY so feeble-minded that you think states have the right to ignore the Constitution?
-
'xactly right. As I have said before. The Constitution is the operators manuel for the gubmint an' if those charged with running things fail to follow those instructions therein, they should be removed from that responsibility.
:pop41:
@mortarman
So,you think states have the right to announce a state religion,make slavery legal,print their own money,etc,etc,etc?
-
Interesting. SO if the federal government decides that outlawing free speech, prohibiting assembly, and banning the free exercise of religion are in the public interest, they can then toss the Constitution in the trash and inhibit these rights? You can't have it both ways here. The same First Amendment that prohibits the federal government from restricting free speech, inhibiting a free press, or banning assembly also prohibits the federal government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion. Thus, the federal government has zero standing when it comes to banning school prayer, teaching theology in public schools, or declaring that evolution is a theory. It is only because of the tyranny of the judicial branch that the First Amendment is no longer followed. (See: Lemon v. Kurtzman).
I strongly suggest you reread the first five words of Amendment I. It places a restriction on the federal government ONLY - not state governments.
My understanding has always been that because the feds were funneling money thru the Dept. Of Education thru the states to the various school districts made the religious related conversations relevant. Had it not been for the federal dollars, there would have been no issue.
-
And I am not going to let you get away with playing the One Dimensional Game,either. It's the old "Can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater thing.
Again, the same limitation that prohibits the federal government from inhibiting free exercise of religion also applies to speech. It would be a violation of the Constitution for the federal government to outlaw shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
That's not true either,and you know it. There are laws,and rightly so,that prohibit religious loons from putting boom boxes in belfry's and broadcasting religious sermons for everyone to hear,regardless of their religious viewpoints.
Please cite one of these federal laws.
But you just go ahead and claim the government does NOT have this right,and when you do so,let me know what neighborhood you live in so I can contact the nearest Mosque and tell them there is a neighborhood they need to reach out to with their calls to prayer.
What part of "Congress shall make no law" are you having difficulty with here? There is no federal prohibition against members of a masjid shouting jumma prayers every Friday from the rooftop with a bull horn. It is none of the federal government's business just as it isn't their business what Cobb County, Georgia puts in their history books about evolution or what some courthouse in Kentucky hangs on the wall.
-
Again, the same limitation that prohibits the federal government from inhibiting free exercise of religion also applies to speech. It would be a violation of the Constitution for the federal government to outlaw shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Please cite one of these federal laws.
What part of "Congress shall make no law" are you having difficulty with here? There is no federal prohibition against members of a masjid shouting jumma prayers every Friday from the rooftop with a bull horn. It is none of the federal government's business just as it isn't their business what Cobb County, Georgia puts in their history books about evolution or what some courthouse in Kentucky hangs on the wall.
@Hoodat
They are state laws. In some cases city laws,with varying names. Maybe "disturbing the peace" in some cases,or just noise violations in others. One case that comes to mind was a pack of religious loons were haunting Stapleton Airport in Denver,and harassing travelers by "trying to save their souls". A court,which I THINK was a state court but COULD have been federal ruled they could visit the airport to hand out literature and talk to those interested,but could get no closer than 12 feet to people that wanted to be left alone. So there they were,at the airport the next day,with 12 foot poles.
I know of one fundie church in Denver that tried putting speakers in their belfry and blasting out hymns and sermons on Sunday,and they were shut down,too. Disturbing the peace.
ALL of these incidents have federal govenrment/Constitutional connections because of the "freedom of religion" aspect.
-
From 2009 to 2012 I lived in the Veterans Housing Program barracks at Ft. McCoy. There are seven buildings in the Contanment area on the main post that are designated as chapels. Each building had a cross on it's steeple until Sock Monkey's evil an' utterly corrupt regime ordered the crosses removed an' six of the chapels shut down. Then in May of 2010, after the heroic Seal Team Six took out Bin Laden, a mosque waa opened on post. An' of course they had to have that muzzie caterwahling coming from the loud speakers day an' night.
:pop41:
-
From 2009 to 2012 I lived in the Veterans Housing Program barracks at Ft. McCoy. There are seven buildings in the Contanment area on the main post that are designated as chapels. Each building had a cross on it's steeple until Sock Monkey's evil an' utterly corrupt regime ordered the crosses removed an' six of the chapels shut down. Then in May of 2010, after the heroic Seal Team Six took out Bin Laden, a mosque waa opened on post. An' of course they had to have that muzzie caterwahling coming from the loud speakers day an' night.
:pop41:
@mortarman
I can't even guess at what your legal options,if any,would be on a military base,but I have a pretty fair idea what I would do about the mosque and the call to prayer.
For one thing,Islam is NOT a religion. It is a form of government. An AGGRESSIVE AND VIOLENT form of government dedicated to world conquest by violent and subversive means.
We have laws against organized crime,so why are there no laws against Islam?
-
@Hoodat
They are state laws.
Exactly. State laws - not federal laws. The federal government should not be involved at all. Which brings us back to Florida. If this cross violated Florida law, then the State of Florida is responsible for dealing with it. Not the federal government. (See: Amendment I). Our Bill of Rights places limitations on what the Federal government can do. And in this case, it explicitly prohibits federal involvement.
ALL of these incidents have federal govenrment/Constitutional connections because of the "freedom of religion" aspect.
Freedom of religion does not come from the federal government. It does not come from our Constitution.
-
Exactly. State laws - not federal laws. The federal government should not be involved at all. Which brings us back to Florida. If this cross violated Florida law, then the State of Florida is responsible for dealing with it. Not the federal government. (See: Amendment I). Our Bill of Rights places limitations on what the Federal government can do. And in this case, it explicitly prohibits federal involvement.
Freedom of religion does not come from the federal government. It does not come from our Constitution.
@Hoodat
Islam is what makes these waters murky. Despite the PR calling it a religion,it is NOT a religion,it is a death cult bend on world domination via invasion and war.
States don't have the power to ban any group of foreigners from entry. Not even murderers masked as religious believers.
-
@Hoodat
Islam is what makes these waters murky.
There is nothing murky about the Constitution of the United States of America. I stand by Amendments I and X, not by what you or anyone else deems to be in the public interest.
-
There is nothing murky about the Constitution of the United States of America. I stand by Amendments I and X, not by what you or anyone else deems to be in the public interest.
@Hoodat
OK,now you are starting to piss me off. Do you NOT understand the FACT that I said Islam in NOT a religion,but a form of religious police state,and it was ISLAM that made the Constitutional issue murky?