It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by endisnighe
It plainly states, that 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.
Does this mean that because someone in Government talks about religion that CONGRESS passed a damn law?
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by endisnighe
It plainly states, that 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.
By your understanding, the constitution is contradicting itself when it is clearly not. There is a clear difference between 'respecting' and 'free exercise'. Congress cannot make any laws in favour of one religion but at the same time congress cannot prohibit the freedom of religion in this country. Just because you are free to follow which religion you wish does not mean that congress is obligated or can write laws in favour of such, the constitution clearly prohibits this fact.
Im sure though you full well understand the clear fact of seperation of church and state, and yet you cannot seem to come to terms with admitting you are wrong on this point, so you make excuses.
Does this mean that because someone in Government talks about religion that CONGRESS passed a damn law?
Well that was not what I or anybody here argued. My argument was over the fact that the government has no right involving religion within our laws. It was not against congressmen and women expressing their personal beliefs as they are citizens. So if your local state congressman or woman is muslim and praises islam, thank goodness you will be around to defend his right to do so and I certainly will have no problem.
The OP was clearly trying to use the religious connections of the founders to justify religious laws, and he is greatly mistaken. It doesnt work like that.
In anycase I would verywell like you to answer my question. If by your understanding the constitution only allows the right for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, then does this mean an athiest american has lesser rights than a religious one?
[edit on 31-5-2010 by Southern Guardian]
Originally posted by Loken68
Alot of people still want to make the claim that our Nation wasn't founded on Christian Principle's. well after looking at these list I sort of doubt that.
Originally posted by endisnighe
YES, the founders wanted to separate the religion from government, but they DID NOT want to separate the people from religion.
Yes?
Originally posted by endisnighe
You have the RIGHT to not believe in Religion or a furtherance of GOD.
But those that decide to believe? Are they supposed to be quiet? Are they not allowed to espouse their rhetoric? Of course not. That is obvious.
I believe that all that want to contribute should contribute. NOW, that is different than the folks that espouse the average rhetoric. But, I believe in the first amendment, wholeheartedly!
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by dalan.
Agree one hundred percent on your post.
The Founders did not give us our rights, they merely gave us protection from government encroachment upon them.
Originally posted by randyvs
MAJESTY.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I do as well. My main contention is with the OP who claims the nation was founded on christian principles because the DOI signers all listed religious affiliations.