Religious symbols displayed on public land OR More liberal Christian bashing.

Clak

CAGiversary!
Thought I'd phrase it either way since we've been accused of unfairly picking on Christians by some. Anyway, in this case we have a public memorial which until recently displayed a Christian flag (yeah I had never seen it either...). Now in the article we have legal experts stating it's a clear violation of the separation of church and state, on the other hand we have some guy saying:
"We've let our religious freedoms and constitutional rights be stripped away one by one, and I think it's time we took a stand," King resident James Joyce said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/ap_on_re_us/us_christian_flag_defenders

So who is right here? There doesn't seem to be any legal room to argue, and the guy above doesn't seem to have a great grasp of what he is talking about anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Have to have more details. But if it's public, government-owned property, there's no place for religious symbols of any kind IMO.

People have freedom to express religious beliefs, the government doesn't as displaying religious items on government-property, buildings etc. steps over into establishing/recognizing etc. those religions and not others.
 
Can you actually post the article?

- edit I found it.

The Christian flag is everywhere in the small city of King: flying in front of barbecue joints and hair salons, stuck to the bumpers of trucks, hanging in windows and emblazoned on T-shirts.

The relatively obscure emblem has become omnipresent because of one place it can't appear: flying above a war memorial in a public park.

The city council decided last month to remove the flag from above the monument in Central Park after a resident complained, and after city leaders got letters from the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State urging them to remove it.

That decision incensed veterans groups, churches and others in King, a city of about 6,000 people 15 miles north of Winston-Salem. Ray Martini, 63, an Air Force veteran who served in Vietnam, launched a round-the-clock vigil to guard a replica Christian flag hanging on a wooden pole in front of the war memorial.

Since Sept. 22, the vigil has been bolstered by home-cooked food delivered by supporters, sleeping bags and blankets donated by a West Virginia man and offers of support from New York to Louisiana.

"This monument stands as hallowed ground," said Martini, a tall, trim man with a tattoo on his right arm commemorating the day in 1988 when he became a born-again Christian. "It kills me when I think people want to essentially desecrate it."

The protesters are concerned not only about the flag, which was one of 11 flying above the memorial when it was dedicated six years ago, but about a metal sculpture nearby depicting a soldier kneeling before a cross.

"I won't let it fall," Martini said. "I have already told the city, before you can take it down, I'll tie myself to it and you can cut me down first."

The identity of the resident who complained about the flag, a veteran of the Afghanistan war, has not been made public. But the state chapter of the ACLU has no problem with the vigil.

"We were concerned when the city was sponsoring the Christian flag, but we don't have any concern with veterans groups displaying the flag," legal director Katy Parker said. "We think it's great the city is offering citizens a chance to express their opinions."

The protesters, though, aren't satisfied with the vigil. They're planning an Oct. 23 rally in support of their ultimate goal, which is for the city to restore the Christian flag to the permanent metal pole on the memorial.

At a recent public hearing, roughly 500 people packed the King Elementary School gymnasium, many waving Christian flags. Of more than 40 speakers, no one spoke in favor of removing it.

"We've let our religious freedoms and constitutional rights be stripped away one by one, and I think it's time we took a stand," King resident James Joyce said.

Mayor Jack Warren said the city won't make a decision until it can go over its options with legal counsel. One possibility is designating a flag pole at the memorial for the display of any religious emblem, he said. Another is selling or donating the memorial to a veterans organization, essentially privatizing it.

"What it comes down to is: What can we do and what can't we do, what's legal and what's illegal?" he said.

Created by a pastor in New York City a little over a century ago, the flag, which sets a red cross in a blue square in the upper left corner of a white field, has been used by both liberal and conservative Protestant churches, but rarely draws much attention, according to Elesha Coffman, a history professor at Waynesburg University.

"I would guess most churchgoing Protestants in America have never even noticed if there is a Christian flag in their own sanctuary," she said. "It's just kind of there, unless there's a controversy, and suddenly people pick it up."

In King, it's virtually inescapable. Gullion's Christian Supply Center, an area retailer, has sold hundreds of flags since the dispute began, according to Leanne Gay, who was running a tent at Calvary Baptist Church in King where everything from Christian flag decals to T-shirts were for sale.

"In the first couple weeks, we were running out of flags every two hours or so," she said.

The Rev. Kevin Broyhill, pastor at Calvary Baptist, donated the flag now flying at the vigil. But Broyhill thinks having it returned permanently to the memorial is a losing legal strategy. He wants the city to transfer the memorial to a veterans group, which would make it private land.

"Right now, the judges on the Fourth Circuit Court are very liberal," he said. "This battle's already been fought in court."

Broyhill is probably right, according to Larry Little, a lawyer and professor of political science at Winston-Salem State University.

"They know they'd lose," he said of the city council. "They would have to use taxpayers' money to defend what any lawyer worth a grain of salt could tell them is a violation of the separation of church and state."

For veterans who say they're honoring the sacrifices of fallen comrades or Christians who say they're defending their faith, though, such a compromise seems like a sellout.

"That's an easy out," said Eugene Kiger, who has been part of the vigil since the beginning. "The people here saw what was happening and said, 'Somebody has stood up. It's time to stand up with them.'"

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&pid=0&sid=2087760&page=2

0497e228c1174b2faf12f5b.jpg
 
I don't think it is necessary to have that flag at the memorial and I think that those people would actually desecrate the memorial if somebody wanted to put up a crescent moon and star and would be complaining about how Islam is threatening their Christian American way of life and blah blah blah.

The LIEBERAL court will strike this down or the town will pussy out and give away the land.

- edit And the second part of that article reminded me of a David Cross joke. "I own a flag distribution company. Hello ribbon money, hello flag money."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXjLI9yxQvo
 
Reading it, I stand by my post above. Stupid flag is all over the town already, no need to get their panties in a bunch over it not being able to fly over a war memorial in a park.

No religious symbols on public property--even in this case it's not like everyone who's served in war, died in war etc. is christian. They're free to fly it on any private property they choose.
 
I've always thought it was funny how most of the mini flags, car flags, etc. you see are made in China or somewhere. Go patriotism.

But anyway, yeah they can fly the thing all over town if they want, but not on public property.
 
[quote name='Clak']I've always thought it was funny how most of the mini flags, car flags, etc. you see are made in China or somewhere. Go patriotism.

But anyway, yeah they can fly the thing all over town if they want, but not on public property.[/QUOTE]
Because it's never really about patriotism. It's about them needed the reassurance that it's ok to screw somebody else as long as they profit from it.
 
Headstones are a bit different since those are individual, and representative of the individual dead soldier's beliefs.

That's a bit different than flying a flag over a whole memorial on public land.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I don't see any problem putting it over a war memorial. In memorials, religious totems, symbols and flags have a place. My grandfather is buried in Arlington, and he has a cross on his headstone. There are people buried there who have the Star of David, and I'd bet you can find a crescent if you look today.

Wait, found it: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/funeral_information/authorized_emblems.html[/QUOTE]

The atheist symbol is badass. ;)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Headstones are a bit different since those are individual, and representative of the individual dead soldier's beliefs.

That's a bit different than flying a flag over a whole memorial on public land.[/QUOTE]

Completely. That's completely personal.

But in case the other side didn't catch it - we're not fighting the crusades. Our military fights for American values, not Jesus.

Kind of a big deal.
 
[quote name='camoor']Completely. That's completely personal.

But in case the other side didn't catch it - we're not fighting the crusades. Our military fights for American values, not Jesus.

Kind of a big deal.[/QUOTE]
At least that's what we're told they're fighting for.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Headstones are a bit different since those are individual, and representative of the individual dead soldier's beliefs.

That's a bit different than flying a flag over a whole memorial on public land.[/QUOTE]
I get that, I do. It's an individual choice, and you check a box on a form ahead of time.

Ten commandments in the statehouse or courthouse, absolutely not. It indicates a bias to the groups creating, enforcing or adjudicating the law. The Bible notations in the US military rifle sights? Completely inappropriate.

Crosses or religious memorabilia on a memorial, very different. It's not a state endorsement of a specific religion as much as it's a recognition that states are made up of people, and people often subscribe to religion. Is there a problem with the writing on the Tomb of the Unknowns?
 
[quote name='Quillion']I get that, I do. It's an individual choice, and you check a box on a form ahead of time.

Ten commandments in the statehouse or courthouse, absolutely not. It indicates a bias to the groups creating, enforcing or adjudicating the law. The Bible notations in the US military rifle sights? Completely inappropriate.

Crosses or religious memorabilia on a memorial, very different. It's not a state endorsement of a specific religion as much as it's a recognition that states are made up of people, and people often subscribe to religion. Is there a problem with the writing on the Tomb of the Unknowns?[/QUOTE]

Eh, weak example.

Sculpted into the east panel that faces Washington, D.C., are three Greek figures representing Peace, Victory, and Valor. Inscribed on the western panel of the Tomb are the words:
"HERE RESTS IN HONORED GLORY AN AMERICAN SOLDIER KNOWN BUT TO GOD"

So it's more akin to "ANNUIT COEPTIS"

This was pre-WW2 USA, they kept it a little more classy. It's only after McCarthyism and the red scare that the theists have a serious opportunity to Jesus-up the Gubmint.

This xian flag is obviously over-the-top. If you can't see the difference, then may God have mercy on your soul.
 
[quote name='camoor']Eh, weak example.

So it's more akin to "ANNUIT COEPTIS"

This was pre-WW2 USA, they kept it a little more classy. It's only after McCarthyism and the red scare that the theists have a serious opportunity to Jesus-up the Gubmint.
[/Quote]I've given two examples of memorials. Would you accept "Iaus Deo" on the Washington Monument opened in 1885? It also contains three scriptures on stones in the 24th landing. Two from Proverbs and one from Luke.

Appropriate places for religion in government are memorials and monuments and supplications by officials, examples include:
  • Washington's Inagural Address
  • Prayer at Opening of Congress
  • Swearing in on the Bible (or other religious icon of the person's choice)
This xian flag is obviously over-the-top. If you can't see the difference, then may God have mercy on your soul.
What I see is selective reading of the First Amendment. Everyone is concerned with the Establishment Clause. I think the removal of a religious icon from a memorial is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

I think it's inarguable that at least some of the people that memorial is *ahem* memorializing are Christian. If they had a voice, what would they ask for? I'm not arguing that only the Christian flag should be flown, just that it shouldn't have been removed.
 
It's still public property, publicly funded. If someone wants a religious on their tombstone, that's fine to do when they die. The tombstone is theirs. Hoisting a flag over an entire area sends a message though. I honestly don't like that "in god we trust" is on our currency, but I gave up on that fight a long time ago.
 
I hate the play the whiny athiest, but what if it's the religious symbols themselves you have a problem with? I mean it would be great for everyone else to express their beliefs with a flag, but what if you have a lack of religious belief?

......yeah I guess I should work on that FSM flag.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I've given two examples of memorials. Would you accept "Iaus Deo" on the Washington Monument opened in 1885? It also contains three scriptures on stones in the 24th landing. Two from Proverbs and one from Luke.


Appropriate places for religion in government are memorials and monuments and supplications by officials, examples include:
  • Washington's Inagural Address
  • Prayer at Opening of Congress
  • Swearing in on the Bible (or other religious icon of the person's choice)
What I see is selective reading of the First Amendment. Everyone is concerned with the Establishment Clause. I think the removal of a religious icon from a memorial is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

I think it's inarguable that at least some of the people that memorial is *ahem* memorializing are Christian. If they had a voice, what would they ask for? I'm not arguing that only the Christian flag should be flown, just that it shouldn't have been removed.[/QUOTE]

Yes, technically it should all be eradicated.

Personally though, I don't really care too much about the examples you cite because I can see things in a cultural context. Honestly, a person could make the case that the use of the Bible above has literary and artistic merit. After all, many of our Federal buildings are modeled after pagan Greek and Roman temples - doesn't mean that Americans believe in Zeus. It's just that we admire those cultures, and the classic style happens to be completely badass.

The problem is that this flag reeks of American Jeeezus, it has absolutely no cultural or artistic value. It's just a close-minded small town getting their jollies by thumbing their nose at freedom of religion. F that.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yes, technically it should all be eradicated.

Personally though, I don't really care too much about the examples you cite because I can see things in a cultural context. Honestly, a person could make the case that the use of the Bible above has literary and artistic merit. After all, many of our Federal buildings are modeled after pagan Greek and Roman temples - doesn't mean that Americans believe in Zeus. It's just that we admire those cultures, and the classic style happens to be completely badass.

The problem is that this flag reeks of American Jeeezus, it has absolutely no cultural or artistic value. It's just a close-minded small town getting their jollies by thumbing their nose at freedom of religion. F that.[/QUOTE]
That was a damned good post.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yes, technically it should all be eradicated.[/Quote]Disagree. Again, eradication of those things would be a violation of the first amendment. Private citizens who become public servants do not give up their right to "the free exercise thereof."
Personally though, I don't really care too much about the examples you cite because I can see things in a cultural context. Honestly, a person could make the case that the use of the Bible above has literary and artistic merit. After all, many of our Federal buildings are modeled after pagan Greek and Roman temples - doesn't mean that Americans believe in Zeus. It's just that we admire those cultures, and the classic style happens to be completely badass.
You're stretching. They didn't place specific scriptures because the Bible is a "Helluva Read!" Comparing specific religious citations to the modeling of architecture is a stretch as well. Were they to include myth, likenesses, or supplications to Zeus on the monument, you would have a point.
The problem is that this flag reeks of American Jeeezus, it has absolutely no cultural or artistic value. It's just a close-minded small town getting their jollies by thumbing their nose at freedom of religion. F that.
I think you're reading too much into it. The specific Christian Flag mentioned in the article is in use all over the world, and was created over 100 years ago to represent Christianity as a whole.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I
What I see is selective reading of the First Amendment. Everyone is concerned with the Establishment Clause. I think the removal of a religious icon from a memorial is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
[/QUOTE]

The government doesn't have free exercise.

Individuals do in their private lives and on private property.

Exercising of religion on public property shouldn't happen, and public figures acting in their public role (not as a private citizen) shouldn't be using religious symbols, making religion specific statements etc. as that gets into government promotion of one religion.

Public officials can still talk about their religion in private roles (when talking as a citizen in an interview etc.), but they shouldn't be doing it in speeches etc. when they're acting in their official capacity..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Quillion']The specific Christian Flag mentioned in the article is in use all over the world, and was created over 100 years ago to represent Christianity as a whole.[/QUOTE]

The Christian Flag was first conceived on September 26, 1897, at Brighton Chapel on Coney Island in Brooklyn, New York in the United States. The superintendent of a Sunday school, Charles C. Overton, was forced to give an impromptu lecture to the gathered students, because the scheduled speaker had failed to arrive for the event. Overton saw a flag of the United States in the front of the chapel (a common custom in many American churches). Drawing on the flag for inspiration, he gave a speech asking the students what a flag representing Christianity would look like.
...
Since the Christian Flag was inspired by the flag of the United States, it takes its colors and overall design from the American flag.
...
Some American churches practice a "pledge of allegiance" or "affirmation of loyalty" to the Christian Flag, based on the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.

...let's just say the story of this flag ain't exactly "The Agony and the Ecstasy"
 
[quote name='camoor']...let's just say the story of this flag ain't exactly "The Agony and the Ecstasy"[/QUOTE]Wow. How many times are you going to move the goal posts?

You claimed "it has absolutely no cultural or artistic value" I posted that it does. Granted, not much history, but it is not "just a close-minded small town getting their jollies by thumbing their nose at freedom of religion", it is a symbol used by many churches in North America, Latin America, and Africa.

You stated that citations of religion on government monuments were classy before "McCarthyism and the red scare ... the theists have a serious opportunity to Jesus-up the Gubmint". I posted religious examples in government that predate your point. I posted multiple examples of memorials that use "God", or specific religious icons from multiple religions.

The problem is that clearly you just don't like Christianity. That's fine. I don't care for it much either. I feel that the practice of it can easily move people to becoming oppressive. Move people to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens because those freedoms don't fit into a "Christian" view of how life should be lived. I get that you want to protect against that.

But- Your intolerance of Christianity; evidenced by your dismissive tone every time you've mentioned it and your goal of removing free practice from every public forum is just as oppressive. It's just as fanatical. There's a place for religion in public life. There's a place for religious displays on public property - as long as those displays are paid for by private individuals, and displays from all religions are allowed.
 
[quote name='Quillion']
There's a place for religion in public life. There's a place for religious displays on public property - as long as those displays are paid for by private individuals, and displays from all religions are allowed.[/QUOTE]

That's reasonably fair. But the latter part is the problem there would be a major uproar if someone wanted to put a Muslim flag on that memorial.

And do you know how many religions there are around the world--far too many to put a flag for everyone up. And what about atheists?

It's just simpler to keep all religious symbology out of public space. I don't even like crap like "In God We Trust" on money. While not establishing any particularly religion, it's establishing belief in some type of god as part of our government/country which is lame.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Wow. How many times are you going to move the goal posts?

You claimed "it has absolutely no cultural or artistic value" I posted that it does. Granted, not much history, but it is not "just a close-minded small town getting their jollies by thumbing their nose at freedom of religion", it is a symbol used by many churches in North America, Latin America, and Africa.

You stated that citations of religion on government monuments were classy before "McCarthyism and the red scare ... the theists have a serious opportunity to Jesus-up the Gubmint". I posted religious examples in government that predate your point. I posted multiple examples of memorials that use "God", or specific religious icons from multiple religions.

The problem is that clearly you just don't like Christianity. That's fine. I don't care for it much either. I feel that the practice of it can easily move people to becoming oppressive. Move people to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens because those freedoms don't fit into a "Christian" view of how life should be lived. I get that you want to protect against that.

But- Your intolerance of Christianity; evidenced by your dismissive tone every time you've mentioned it and your goal of removing free practice from every public forum is just as oppressive. It's just as fanatical. There's a place for religion in public life. There's a place for religious displays on public property - as long as those displays are paid for by private individuals, and displays from all religions are allowed.[/QUOTE]

These folks are free to fly the flag in virtually every location in that town except public land. Is that really oppressive? Is that really fanatical? Honestly, I think you're the one being fanatical here.

And I'd like to clarifiy my position once again. I absolutely do not want to remove religious iconography from every public forum. I don't take issue with public officials swearing in on the Bible (as long as they can choose to opt out without repercussion). I would stand with others in protest if they tried to remove Dali's Last Supper from the National Gallery because of it's religious connotation.

It's just my opinion. But I think this flag really doesn't have much to do with the war memorial. I don't see the connection. I don't see the cultural value in adding it. I don't see a reason to include it.

And to reiterate what Dmaul already stated - your suggestion above to allow religious displays on public land is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Number one, you and I know that these 'mericans ain't gonna cotton to no 'crescent moon and star' flag flying next to the Jesus flag with them colors that dont run - the goddamn red white and blue YEEEE HAW! Number two, American monuments are going to look goofier then the fucking circus if they are all required to fly the Chrisian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Wiccan, Scientologist, Athiest, etc whatever flag.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's just simpler to keep all religious symbology out of public space. I don't even like crap like "In God We Trust" on money. While not establishing any particularly religion, it's establishing belief in some type of god as part of our government/country which is lame.[/QUOTE]

Yeah - unfortunately guys like Quillion are why we can't have nice things :)
 
[quote name='camoor']These folks are free to fly the flag in virtually every location in that town except public land. Is that really oppressive? Is that really fanatical? Honestly, I think you're the one being fanatical here.

And I'd like to clarifiy my position once again. I absolutely do not want to remove religious iconography from every public forum. I don't take issue with public officials swearing in on the Bible (as long as they can choose to opt out without repercussion). I would stand with others in protest if they tried to remove Dali's Last Supper from the National Gallery because of it's religious connotation.

It's just my opinion. But I think this flag really doesn't have much to do with the war memorial. I don't see the connection. I don't see the cultural value in adding it. I don't see a reason to include it.

And to reiterate what Dmaul already stated - your suggestion above to allow religious displays on public land is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Number one, you and I know that these 'mericans ain't gonna cotton to no 'crescent moon and star' flag flying next to the Jesus flag with them colors that dont run - the goddamn red white and blue YEEEE HAW! Number two, American monuments are going to look goofier then the fucking circus if they are all required to fly the Chrisian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Wiccan, Scientologist, Athiest, etc whatever flag.[/QUOTE]
You don't think that a predominately christian jury might judge someone for not swearing on the bible?
 
What is the memorial dedicated to? The fallen in the Afghan war? I cannot seem to find anything about it. Also there seems to be a number of other flags around the memorial, besides the common ones what other flags are flying?
 
[quote name='Clak']You don't think that a predominately christian jury might judge someone for not swearing on the bible?[/QUOTE]

To do so would be committing a crime.
 
Would also be hard to prove, and besides that, since when does something being illegal ever stop anyone?
 
[quote name='Clak']Would also be hard to prove, and besides that, since when does something being illegal ever stop anyone?[/QUOTE]

I don't know what your point is here, man.

Fact is, US government doesn't force anyone to swear on a bible. People are gonna think what they are going to think.
 
violation of the separation of church and state

History lesson for the day:
The constitution does not have anything that either directly or indirectly asserts the separation of church and state. The phrase is attributed to Jefferson during a time when he was out of the country and has since been used as the justification of creating a wall between public land and religious symbols or prayer. Judges have been enforcing their own opinions instead of simply asserting the rules outlined by the constitution.

The first amendment:
"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."

And that is it. It doesn't say anything like separation of church and state. Just that we can't have a government funded and run "Church of America" like England had its Church of England or make preference of religion. So there really isn't a forced "separation" at all.

the more you know
 
Case law precedents overwhelmingly show an historical interpretation of the establishment clause that includes *endorsement* of religions.

Your understanding of the establishment clause is not supported by any legal precedent, and contradicted by all other case law where it has come up.

Now, I know it's a bitter pill to swallow - you mean this one blog I read about the establishment clause on National Review Online was wrong? Yes, yes it was. This is settled law, only open for debate because you refuse to acknowledge that possibly the *dumbest* candidate in the history of everything ever doesn't grasp even Constitutional basics.

EDIT: I mean, dude. DUDE. Duuuuude. Even in a case where the Supreme Court agreed that it was ok to display the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, your interpretation of the establishment clause is recognized as unconstitutional. Get it? Even when it's okay to allow religious iconography on public property, they do so for reasons IN SPITE of the establishment clause, that the historical significance of the monument and other symbols in it suggest a more secular message than one would think by merely looking at the words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Orden_v._Perry

See? Even when you might think you're right, you're wrong. That's the sort of thing that happens when you take the side of someone as frightfully unintelligent as O'Donnell.
 
I just don't understand why the flag has to fly everywhere. Sometimes it feels like people have a greater loyalty to the Christian Church and old timey values more than America itself.

They love the idea of a white Christian America more than what America really is. Every group of people were huge threats to American values but yet we're still sitting here despite women, communists, atheists, tree huggers, blacks, Jews, Irish, Italian, Polish, Japanese, Chinese, and Hispanic "meddling". But no, liberals are the biggest threat to 'Merica since the British. American values surely can't survive unless we plaster every public space with the Ten Commandments, crucifixes, and portraits of the Madonna. Kids have to pray so they know that they really serve God and not country.

When does it end? Everyone in this country could become Christian and I still think the values crowd would have something to moan about.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't know what your point is here, man.

Fact is, US government doesn't force anyone to swear on a bible. People are gonna think what they are going to think.[/QUOTE]
My point is that depending on the jury, not doing so could change the outcome. You get some hury in the south made up of a bunch of bible thumpers, what do you think they'll think when someone refuses to swear on a bible?
 
[quote name='tivo']History lesson for the day:
The constitution does not have anything that either directly or indirectly asserts the separation of church and state. The phrase is attributed to Jefferson during a time when he was out of the country and has since been used as the justification of creating a wall between public land and religious symbols or prayer. Judges have been enforcing their own opinions instead of simply asserting the rules outlined by the constitution.

The first amendment:
"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."

And that is it. It doesn't say anything like separation of church and state. Just that we can't have a government funded and run "Church of America" like England had its Church of England or make preference of religion. So there really isn't a forced "separation" at all.

the more you know[/QUOTE]

We should stop giving tax subsidies for religion, as that is just another way we allow the government to aid in establishing these religions.

[quote name='Clak']My point is that depending on the jury, not doing so could change the outcome. You get some hury in the south made up of a bunch of bible thumpers, what do you think they'll think when someone refuses to swear on a bible?[/QUOTE]

ok
 
Is that "ok, I see" or you think I'm crazy? If you think that someone on a jury wouldn't judge someone for that then I don't know what else to say.
 
[quote name='camoor']We should stop giving tax subsidies for religion, as that is just another way we allow the government to aid in establishing these religions.



ok[/QUOTE]

So you would be ok with taxing religious institutions? That is confusing because I would think levying a tax on religion (even if it was even among all religions) would be infringing on peoples right to practice religion or something. But you know those places of religious worship are just raking in the money. Those greedy fuckers.

You have things so backwards in your head about religion, and government.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So you would be ok with taxing religious institutions? That is confusing because I would think levying a tax on religion (even if it was even among all religions) would be infringing on peoples right to practice religion or something. But you know those places of religious worship are just raking in the money. Those greedy fuckers.

You have things so backwards in your head about religion, and government.[/QUOTE]

Taxing a business doesn't infringe on it's right to do business.

Also, have you seen some of the megachurches going up these days? They have full pre-schools, gymnasiums, upper level seating, and whatnot. You don't build those without a lot of money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Is that "ok, I see" or you think I'm crazy? If you think that someone on a jury wouldn't judge someone for that then I don't know what else to say.[/QUOTE]

Relax, I agree with you. I'm just not sure what you want me to do about it.

[quote name='Knoell']So you would be ok with taxing religious institutions? That is confusing because I would think levying a tax on religion (even if it was even among all religions) would be infringing on peoples right to practice religion or something. But you know those places of religious worship are just raking in the money. Those greedy fuckers.

You have things so backwards in your head about religion, and government.[/QUOTE]

How about Scientologists? Are you happy that Scientologists are getting a tax dodge?
 
[quote name='camoor']Relax, I agree with you. I'm just not sure what you want me to do about it.



How about Scientologists? Are you happy that Scientologists are getting a tax dodge?[/QUOTE]
You know how it can be hard to tell the meaning in text sometimes, just wanted to clarify.

Only way I know to fix it would be to just not allow anyone to. I don't really know what it's supposed to prove anyway. As if swearing on a religious text automatically makes everything someone says true.
 
[quote name='Clak'] As if swearing on a religious text automatically makes everything someone says true.[/QUOTE]

It isn't magic, any oath is supposed to make people act more honorable, and make it feel wrong to lie.

Of course it doesn't work for everyone, but I bet it affects a lot of people's consciences. More than you think.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Taxing a business doesn't infringe on it's right to do business.

Also, have you seen some of the megachurches going up these days? They have full pre-schools, gymnasiums, upper level seating, and whatnot. You don't build those without a lot of money.[/QUOTE]

Your first statement is ridiculous.

Separation of church and state. The argument you guys are so quick to call up, when a christian flag is flying. Religion shall have no part in government. Well the opposite is true of ANY religion. Government shall have no part in Religion.

Simple as that. Argue one way or the other, but be consistent.

About the megachurchs, who cares? its a community thing, what is the big deal, what are they getting away with that we need to tax them? It almost sounds like you dislike megachurches.

There is also a $100+ million dollar mosque going up in NYC, should we tax them because they have money?
 
[quote name='Knoell']It isn't magic, any oath is supposed to make people act more honorable, and make it feel wrong to lie.

Of course it doesn't work for everyone, but I bet it affects a lot of people's consciences. More than you think.[/QUOTE]
Well of course it does if you believe you'll be punished for lying after swearing on something.:roll:
 
bread's done
Back
Top