Thread: Liberal Hitlers

CT, my mother is a Jehovah's Witness and is a full-time door-to-door preacher. She supplements this with preaching at gas stations, laundry mats, doctor's offices, stores, just about anywhere she can corner someone to talk to them about Jehovah. If the proprietor of the establishment feels like my mother is harrassing the customers, you better believe they have the right to ask her to leave. She's got restraining orders against her at 2 gas stations in her town to prove it. You do NOT have the right to go into a store where people are trying to sell their goods and services and harrass their customers.

As far as the school, letting the valedictorian (or was it the president of the student body? I can't recall) speak at graduation is a nice tradition, it is NOT a right guaranteed by law.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Now when the founders used the term "religion," they did not use it, as we often do, to refer to religion in general, let alone to mere public references to God, as the ACLU argues.

What rule of construction says we should understand the words in the Constitution in the sense the word was used by the founders?

PS: An examination of the "subject matter" reveals that in the 1780's, when the context was the legal protection of religion from civil authority, the founders, especially those in Virginia and the North Carolina, used the word "religion" to mean "the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it."

In my experience, those that insist on populist endorsements and expressions of their religion are riddled with self-doubt and insecurity with respect to their alleged beliefs. That is why they demand societal validation of their faith.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

That's only part of it. The other issue that CT has been dodging for quite a long time is that he consistently claims that Christians' right to worship is being infringed upon, yet cannot provide a single example to support that claim.

As you and the rest of the "crazy crew" ignore the latest examples posted

Then blab mindlessly about me "dodging"

Nothing new, this is the emptyheaded foolishness that passes for "debate" at USPOL

Continue

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

As you and the rest of the "crazy crew" ignore the latest examples posted

Are you talking about the shopping mall?

A shopping mall is private property, Sport.

Christians are free to worship what they want, but not on the property of someone else who doesn't want there...

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

As you and the rest of the "crazy crew" ignore the latest examples posted

Then blab mindlessly about me "dodging"

Nothing new, this is the emptyheaded foolishness that passes for "debate" at USPOL

Continue

Good to know I'm not a part of the crazy crew since I addressed both of your examples, yet you didn't reply to them.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

The term "establishment" also had a clear, precise, unambiguous and technical meaning at the time. [B]To "establish" a "religion" meant to pick one Christian denomination, give it preference in law, and compel citizens to support it with their tax dollars.

The term "establishment of religion" was novel. It had never before been used in a constitution or a statute.

Our founders had seen in England the kind of religious tyranny and repression that results from an established church and were determined not to repeat that mistake in the our young nation.

Our founders didn't have to go to England to find tyrannical establishments of religion. All they had to do was go to Massachusetts or Connecticut.

So only Congress can violate the First Amendment, and the only way it can do that is to select one Christian denomination, make it the official church of the United States, and compel citizens to support it with their tax dollars.

In that case, we better hope that Congress never wants to establish Islam.

Congress can do anything it wants. It has complete constitutional liberty to engage in any kind of religious expression it chooses as long as it does not establish an official church.

Can it forbid infant baptism and establish harsh punishments for those violate the prohibition?

"Politics do not belong in the church" and "The church must be separate from the state"...These were official slogans of the Nazi Party, adopted in the mid-1930s

It appears that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison - and the men who made a U. S. Constitution that separated religion from the cognizance of civil government - had something in common with the Nazis.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

As you and the rest of the "crazy crew" ignore the latest examples posted

Then blab mindlessly about me "dodging"

Nothing new, this is the emptyheaded foolishness that passes for "debate" at USPOL

Continue

:rolleyes:

None of your "examples" demonstrate any restriction on Christians being able to worship.

Nazi photos

The Nazis lied about their wish to separate religion and government.



Hitler greets Muller the "Bishop of the Reich" and Abbot Schachleitner



Hitler greets a Catholic Cardinal


Hitler at Nazi party rally

Note the "Church of our Lady" in the background as if it represented the foundation of the party. Photo taken in Nuremberg, Germany (circa 1928).

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

A Yellowstone County District Court judge has been asked to decide whether a Butte High School student’s civil rights were violated when she was banned from speaking at graduation ceremonies last year because she refused to remove religious references from her speech.

Under the establishment clause a government school district can do anything it wants to with regard to religion, except establish a national religion.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

The case developed several years ago when a youth pastor was arrested at the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., for having a conversation about religion with two other people.

There's no right under the First Amendment for one person to talk about religion with others.

Originally Posted by Mick Jagger

Under the establishment clause a government school district can do anything it wants to with regard to religion, except establish a national religion.

Anything? Even you gotta know that's absolute bullshit Fred. :rolleyes:

http://www.aclj.org/Issues/Resources...nt.aspx?ID=717

The Fifth Circuit is the only United States Court of Appeals to have addressed the rights of students to initiate prayers at graduation following the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. Weisman. On June 7, 1993, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Jones. In other words, the Supreme Court let stand the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision permitting student-initiated prayer at graduation. Thus, the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Jones provides school boards across the nation, both in and outside the Fifth Circuit, with a valid legal basis for choosing to uphold the rights of students to initiate prayers at graduation.