100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Seperation of Church and State | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
notice the phase """or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""" thus all the laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs are technically illegal
But, there are no laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs. What are you talking about? well maybe you might wanna check that statement no manger at christmas no ten commandments in judges domain and no bibles to be taken to school some have been fought and repealed but some have not thus just because a law is passed does not make it legal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is how it is in the constitution==== Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble ---------------------------------------------- notice the phase """or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""" thus all the laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs are technically illegal Hey Robin, yea but the "respecting" part is important. No respect should be given by the government to any religion. Respect mean acknowledgement from the government which is already violated by our president on down. i disagree barb i think it means respect should be given to all religions not none But they fail miserably at respecting all religions plus it would be expensive for them to produce all books from all religions for courts, which they are slowly taking the bible out of court good deal, and then when they do their little prayers they don't respect all religions and when the pres says god bless he leaves out those who have more than one god so he needs to say gods bless America in order to respect all religions.... Yea, cheaper and better to not have any religion in the government and that respects all religions properly and fairly. They just exist in their followers life and not in the life of the government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is your proof of your statement
What is it you are asking me to prove? proof of the statute of separation of church and state i dont think there is one and the second amendment is as close as it gets but everyone forgets the prohibition of law against practicing ones religion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Mon 10/03/11 04:49 PM
|
|
notice the phase """or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""" thus all the laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs are technically illegal
But, there are no laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs. What are you talking about? well maybe you might wanna check that statement no manger at christmas no ten commandments in judges domain and no bibles to be taken to school some have been fought and repealed but some have not thus just because a law is passed does not make it legal but none of those prohibit the practicing of religion. so they are not laws that prohibit the practicing of religion. One religion is being pulled out of government which is how it should be because all religions are not represented. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is how it is in the constitution==== Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble ---------------------------------------------- notice the phase """or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""" thus all the laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs are technically illegal Hey Robin, yea but the "respecting" part is important. No respect should be given by the government to any religion. Respect mean acknowledgement from the government which is already violated by our president on down. i disagree barb i think it means respect should be given to all religions not none But they fail miserably at respecting all religions plus it would be expensive for them to produce all books from all religions for courts, which they are slowly taking the bible out of court good deal, and then when they do their little prayers they don't respect all religions and when the pres says god bless he leaves out those who have more than one god so he needs to say gods bless America in order to respect all religions.... Yea, cheaper and better to not have any religion in the government and that respects all religions properly and fairly. They just exist in their followers life and not in the life of the government. the govt should not spend any money on religious items of any kind they need to do nothing establishing religion nor prohibiting religion thus religion should be off limits for congress |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Mon 10/03/11 04:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is how it is in the constitution==== Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble ---------------------------------------------- notice the phase """or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""" thus all the laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs are technically illegal Hey Robin, yea but the "respecting" part is important. No respect should be given by the government to any religion. Respect mean acknowledgement from the government which is already violated by our president on down. i disagree barb i think it means respect should be given to all religions not none But they fail miserably at respecting all religions plus it would be expensive for them to produce all books from all religions for courts, which they are slowly taking the bible out of court good deal, and then when they do their little prayers they don't respect all religions and when the pres says god bless he leaves out those who have more than one god so he needs to say gods bless America in order to respect all religions.... Yea, cheaper and better to not have any religion in the government and that respects all religions properly and fairly. They just exist in their followers life and not in the life of the government. the govt should not spend any money on religious items of any kind they need to do nothing establishing religion nor prohibiting religion thus religion should be off limits for congress AND government buildings, in government court rooms, in government schools, etc... basically they need to not recognize religion at all so no acknowledgement of it and then no disrespect shown. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is how it is in the constitution==== Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble ---------------------------------------------- notice the phase """or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""" thus all the laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs are technically illegal Hey Robin, yea but the "respecting" part is important. No respect should be given by the government to any religion. Respect mean acknowledgement from the government which is already violated by our president on down. i disagree barb i think it means respect should be given to all religions not none But they fail miserably at respecting all religions plus it would be expensive for them to produce all books from all religions for courts, which they are slowly taking the bible out of court good deal, and then when they do their little prayers they don't respect all religions and when the pres says god bless he leaves out those who have more than one god so he needs to say gods bless America in order to respect all religions.... Yea, cheaper and better to not have any religion in the government and that respects all religions properly and fairly. They just exist in their followers life and not in the life of the government. the govt should not spend any money on religious items of any kind they need to do nothing establishing religion nor prohibiting religion thus religion should be off limits for congress AND government buildings, in government court rooms, in government schools, etc... basically they need to not recognize religion at all so no acknowledgement of it and then no disrespect shown. they own the building not the people it says ----or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;---- does not say except in or on govt property |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well maybe you might wanna check that statement
Can you cite a single law that prohibits somebody from practicing a religion? Established laws prohibits Governments from practicing religion, but I don't know of a single law that prohibits people. Please cite one. There are attempts to outlaw forms of Islam in America, but those won't go anywhere. I don't think this is an informed or educated opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well maybe you might wanna check that statement
Can you cite a single law that prohibits somebody from practicing a religion? Established laws prohibits Governments from practicing religion, but I don't know of a single law that prohibits people. Please cite one. There are attempts to outlaw forms of Islam in America, but those won't go anywhere. I don't think this is an informed or educated opinion. read the thread |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is how it is in the constitution==== Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble ---------------------------------------------- notice the phase """or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""" thus all the laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs are technically illegal Hey Robin, yea but the "respecting" part is important. No respect should be given by the government to any religion. Respect mean acknowledgement from the government which is already violated by our president on down. i disagree barb i think it means respect should be given to all religions not none But they fail miserably at respecting all religions plus it would be expensive for them to produce all books from all religions for courts, which they are slowly taking the bible out of court good deal, and then when they do their little prayers they don't respect all religions and when the pres says god bless he leaves out those who have more than one god so he needs to say gods bless America in order to respect all religions.... Yea, cheaper and better to not have any religion in the government and that respects all religions properly and fairly. They just exist in their followers life and not in the life of the government. the govt should not spend any money on religious items of any kind they need to do nothing establishing religion nor prohibiting religion thus religion should be off limits for congress AND government buildings, in government court rooms, in government schools, etc... basically they need to not recognize religion at all so no acknowledgement of it and then no disrespect shown. they own the building not the people it says ----or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;---- does not say except in or on govt property government building represent our government, religiousless government mind you, so yea the buildings need to be religiousless. I worked for the government and had to keep my religion off work premises and out of my job. Because my words and actions represented the government. I could not just say anything I pleased or break out in prayer like a dolt on the job. And also it was out of respect not only for the other workers there but for the clients. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Mon 10/03/11 05:07 PM
|
|
just because you were told that does not make it legal
but i agree you should not be preaching to your clients (no doubt) but you should not have to hide your beliefs neither if you want the ten commandments or a coby of the koran or bible on your desk or whatever you should be permitted to do so per the constitution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just because you were told that does not make it legal but i agree you should not be preaching to your clients (no doubt) but you should not have to hide your beliefs neither if you want the ten commandments or a coby of the koran or bible on your desk or whatever you should be permitted to do so per the constitution this is where alot of confusion lies, between interpreting what a 'law' is,, which is what the constitution refers to and what a personal expression of faith is,, even if that person works for the government,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Established laws prohibits Governments from practicing religion, but I don't know of a single law that prohibits people. Please cite one.
read the thread
I didn't think so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Established laws prohibits Governments from practicing religion, but I don't know of a single law that prohibits people. Please cite one.
read the thread
I didn't think so. they are examples listed if you dont see them oh well no biggie to me |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just because you were told that does not make it legal but i agree you should not be preaching to your clients (no doubt) but you should not have to hide your beliefs neither if you want the ten commandments or a coby of the koran or bible on your desk or whatever you should be permitted to do so per the constitution this is where alot of confusion lies, between interpreting what a 'law' is,, which is what the constitution refers to and what a personal expression of faith is,, even if that person works for the government,,, interpretation is the problem the constitution was written in a much simpler time the war was just fought over some restricting laws and taxes you go to someone back then and say no thats not what i said when it is written in plain english there would be a good chance you or who yer talkin too wont walk away throw the interpretation out and read it as it was written literally |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 10/03/11 05:30 PM
|
|
just because you were told that does not make it legal but i agree you should not be preaching to your clients (no doubt) but you should not have to hide your beliefs neither if you want the ten commandments or a coby of the koran or bible on your desk or whatever you should be permitted to do so per the constitution this is where alot of confusion lies, between interpreting what a 'law' is,, which is what the constitution refers to and what a personal expression of faith is,, even if that person works for the government,,, interpretation is the problem the constitution was written in a much simpler time the war was just fought over some restricting laws and taxes you go to someone back then and say no thats not what i said when it is written in plain english there would be a good chance you or who yer talkin too wont walk away throw the interpretation out and read it as it was written literally literally then, it says they shall make no 'laws' not that they shall not permit religious expression by employees or on government property or anywhere else it just suggests, the congress(as a body) cannot LITIGATE anyones choice of beliefs be it deistic or agnostic or atheistic but congresspersons and federal employees have rights to religious expression as anyone in any other profession does they just cant LITIGATE it in regards to others as opposed to someplace like the vatican, where catholicism IS the law or some muslim countries where islam is the law we are a nation full of christians, but christianity is not our LAW |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Mon 10/03/11 05:31 PM
|
|
just because you were told that does not make it legal but i agree you should not be preaching to your clients (no doubt) but you should not have to hide your beliefs neither if you want the ten commandments or a coby of the koran or bible on your desk or whatever you should be permitted to do so per the constitution this is where alot of confusion lies, between interpreting what a 'law' is,, which is what the constitution refers to and what a personal expression of faith is,, even if that person works for the government,,, interpretation is the problem the constitution was written in a much simpler time the war was just fought over some restricting laws and taxes you go to someone back then and say no thats not what i said when it is written in plain english there would be a good chance you or who yer talkin too wont walk away throw the interpretation out and read it as it was written literally literally then, it says they shall make no 'laws' not that they shall not permit religious expression by employees or on government property or anywhere else it just suggests, the congress(as a body) cannot LITIGATE anyones choice of beliefs be it deistic or agnostic or atheistic but congresspersons and federal employees have rights to religious expression as anyone in any other profession does they just cant LITIGATE it in regards to others you do not need a law to permit you to do something laws are made to prohibit behavior not permit it and yep when it comes to religion congress should do nothing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 10/03/11 05:37 PM
|
|
just because you were told that does not make it legal but i agree you should not be preaching to your clients (no doubt) but you should not have to hide your beliefs neither if you want the ten commandments or a coby of the koran or bible on your desk or whatever you should be permitted to do so per the constitution this is where alot of confusion lies, between interpreting what a 'law' is,, which is what the constitution refers to and what a personal expression of faith is,, even if that person works for the government,,, interpretation is the problem the constitution was written in a much simpler time the war was just fought over some restricting laws and taxes you go to someone back then and say no thats not what i said when it is written in plain english there would be a good chance you or who yer talkin too wont walk away throw the interpretation out and read it as it was written literally literally then, it says they shall make no 'laws' not that they shall not permit religious expression by employees or on government property or anywhere else it just suggests, the congress(as a body) cannot LITIGATE anyones choice of beliefs be it deistic or agnostic or atheistic but congresspersons and federal employees have rights to religious expression as anyone in any other profession does they just cant LITIGATE it in regards to others you do not need a law to permit you to do something laws are made to prohibit behavior not permit it and yep when it comes to religion congress should do nothing laws restrict they also mandate,,,, government is not to mandate nor restrict religion or its expression taxpayers money used for an exhibit of the ten commandments on government property would be inappropriate however, restricting private and personal funds of a private citizen to use for a bible or a poster of ten commandments is likewise inappropriate so although the government, as a body, cannot enforce a religion, they can also not RESTRICT its citizens from expression of theirs,,,,even citizens who are federally employed in their buildings,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just because you were told that does not make it legal but i agree you should not be preaching to your clients (no doubt) but you should not have to hide your beliefs neither if you want the ten commandments or a coby of the koran or bible on your desk or whatever you should be permitted to do so per the constitution this is where alot of confusion lies, between interpreting what a 'law' is,, which is what the constitution refers to and what a personal expression of faith is,, even if that person works for the government,,, interpretation is the problem the constitution was written in a much simpler time the war was just fought over some restricting laws and taxes you go to someone back then and say no thats not what i said when it is written in plain english there would be a good chance you or who yer talkin too wont walk away throw the interpretation out and read it as it was written literally literally then, it says they shall make no 'laws' not that they shall not permit religious expression by employees or on government property or anywhere else it just suggests, the congress(as a body) cannot LITIGATE anyones choice of beliefs be it deistic or agnostic or atheistic but congresspersons and federal employees have rights to religious expression as anyone in any other profession does they just cant LITIGATE it in regards to others you do not need a law to permit you to do something laws are made to prohibit behavior not permit it and yep when it comes to religion congress should do nothing laws restrict they also mandate,,,, government is not to mandate nor restrict religion or its expression yep that is what i have been saying |
|
|
|
|
