SmarterthanYou
rebel
correct, to an extent. there is no wall of separation between government and religion. there just can't be a law that mandates ONLY a specific religion, or prohibits one.
What??
- Thread starter Haiku
- Start date
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
are you intolerant of the unsighted?.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol......
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Would you care to show where the OP is in conflict with the following:
"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."
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
It most certainly was the intent.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're reading it wrong, reading only what you want to.
The law does not have to mandate any religion just support any religion to be in violation of the constitution.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the First Amendment does not prevent the government from being religious, only using the law to support or prohibit a religion. can you people not read?
There is no reason "no law" should be any less restrictive here. This is why ridiculous constitutional arguments like yours are given no respect. The deciding factor again is does the law serve a valid state interest. There is no valid state interest served by these plaques. The law is stupid and just a waste of government resources to promote a specific set of religious beliefs.
I wonder if your position would change if you had read the story and realized the sponsor, Riner, was a Democrat?
Your arguments are childish nonsense. This law does support or promote religion. It certainly shows a preference for monotheistic Judeo Christian religion and excludes others.
You are just taking your typically brain dead knee jerk reaction.
It does prevent the government from being religious, but not the individuals in the govt.
And can you not read the entire thread is about a KY law that endorses religion.
Yep "smarter than you" is NOT.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
stop being a total douchebag. I'm about as non-religious as they come and your inability to understand simple constitutional concepts does not mean my argument is ridiculous. It's idiot notions like your 'valid state interest' that allows fucktard courts to validate prohibitions on carrying guns even though the Illinois right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but prohibitions are appropriate police powers.
Article I Section 22Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
your inability to comprehend shit is making you look stupid. I'm not saying this law is constitutional, i'm saying that the First Amendment doesn't stop the government from being religious.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and I agree with this. It also does not mean that a US rep or president cannot do some sort of public prayer. It just means that the government cannot force you to pray with them.
yes, I can read and I agree that the law is unconstitutional.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you who cannot comprehend my position makes YOU the stupid one, not I.
There is no support for your arguments. You seem to think the courts should throw out all case law and hand down decisions based on whim. The valid state interest allows the courts to knock down laws that overstep the bounds of the consitution while preventing legislating from the bench. Your understanding of consitutional law is the typical ramblings of a willfully ignorant conservative. You offer no principle or framework for the courts to operate within and instead demand the application of your whims.
Again, the first amendments is no less/more restrictive than the second. You offer no reason why it should be. You are just picking an choosing while using a selective reading that benefits what YOU want the constitution to say.
There are few people that would argue that the second amendment means that the state cannot restrict arms in anyway. I doubt, you would object to laws prohibiting the ownership/use of RPGs or, say, a tank. The courts have to deal with the specifics and "valid state interest" is the best option. Laws intended to promote public safety are permissible but the intent cannot simply be to deny citizens the right to bear arms. Many gun laws have gone too far and should be rolled back or nullified.
That has nothing at all to do with this topic. No right minded judge would ever bring into a case on the first amendment consideration of laws that may infringe on the second amendment. You are just arguing the position of a childish little brat, that until you get your way on guns, all limits on the government should be ignored. Your political views are petty and vindictive.
You are back pedaling. At least your position is becoming more rational.
The government cannot be religious. An elected official or agent of the state can be religious in their private lives. They can take inspiration from their religion. They should not be permitted to use our resources to engage in religious acts or promote their religion. That is what this law was attempting.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're a rambling fool with serious reading comprehension problems and old talking points.