abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

Not sure what you mean Sam.

 

and of course you now try to insinuate that my comment is about the pope, when you know that it is a comparrison. If that is the level of discussion you wish to stoop to then we are done.

 

Well played, any explanation for this order?

 

Are the words and thoughts of his statement true? Are the words and thoughts of his statement accurate? I know you have problems with the Church and the Pope (Francis), if you can put that aside can you support the idea/thoughts or challenge his statement solely on its content?

 

I can support the points made about infanticide but to lump that with abortion is just incorrect in my opinion, it just begs the question of the church proving that 'person' exists prior to viability something that science has no real consensus of. The church may believe what it will but that does not give it the right to try and impose that belief onto others, the separation of church and state does not just mean the freedom to practice religion it also means the freedom from religion, and it seems to slip a lot of religious peoples minds that it is only relatively recently that the church has been wholesale against abortion at any time.

 

Thanks.

Matters of religion are often matters of faith. Faith demands a foundation or it is simply baseless, but faith does not necessarily or by definition have to conclude with repeatable scientific test/conclusion/fact. The Church's basis is the Holy (yes, yes for some not all) Bible. Many laws that we've had and much of what will still have can be found in the Bible as well as other sources. The right, power, authority its leadership and or membership speaks from would or should only come from the teaching/instruction found in the Bible. How life, rights, innocence and guilt are often perceived are understood through the light or filter of a standard, moral code, life experience etc. but above all that is a free will, that can choose to perceive or not what they see and experience in the light it is presented or commonly understood.

In America the Federal Constitution only limits government from establishing a religion and has neither the power to dictate worship nor its exclusion.

 

Yes I too want to know what led to this order. The bible is more then one little piece you quoted. what led to the order, what was the result. I don't read the bible and don't plan on starting, but would like to know how what you said relates Gorn.

 

I actually agree with the second part of this too. The problem is that so few people are ever remorseful for what they've done. At least publicly. Abortion culture pressures them to "own their choice" even if they realize they made the wrong one and are consumed with guilt because of it.

 

No problem

Yes and faith does not make rights or laws

No faith by definition does not require a foundation, faith is a "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." .. if you have proof then you have no need of faith.

Then it cannot claim an overriding moral superiority, simply because it is not the only foundation of morals.

True, but that still does not give a certain sect of a certain religion the right to dictate to others.

I disagree as this rides rough shot over people who don't believe in y9ur particularly brand of religion or even in any religion at all.

Agreed, though I disagree that-that standard moral code needs or requires to be based on a religious doctrine.

The 1st Amendment establishes that government will make no law or show no support that favors one religion over another and this has been upheld in numerous Supreme court decisions including Everson Vs Board of Education, Reynolds v. United States, Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Engel v. Vitale, Epperson v. Arkansas, Lemon v. Kurtzman + Others

The Treaty of Tripoli states As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

 

It was a revenge attack for when the Amalekites attacked the Jews on their exodus from Egypt (even though the Amalekites lost that battle) and to be honest more than a little overkill (pun intended).

 

I still have faith in the idea that the Federal Constitution was meant to be read as written. Your first case (didn't look further time issue) was decided 5-4 that the government could reimburse taxpayers for private/religious school transportation costs as this does not establish a religion or favor a particular religion.

Never liked the idea of precedent. Why not compare the case directly to the Constitutional law. This I'd rather see, compare the question directly to the Constitution then some other derivative that can lead to a departure from the intended, limited meaning. Why, simply because I am for limited government as I believe the original USA citizens were and believe if you want to expand the Constitution then Amend it.

As to the treaty text credited to the president I can see where it has been honored strictly as recorded from America's free will commitment but believe that the Twin Towers attacks (among others) may not hold true from the other half of this compact. As a (or a few?) Muslim nation(s) consider America the Great Satan and perhaps Israel a lesser demon, but both deserving of annihilation

Given your dissection and citations above (thank you for the info) would you conclude that the 1A is an anti-religion directive or simply and specifically that Congress can make no law establishing a religion period?

 

And the lesson learned...don't mess with Mossad/IDF or dare I say...Yahweh?

 

Again that is your prerogative as to how you wish to see the constitution, however that is not the reality of what has and is happening.
As I understand it the government cannot make laws that favor one religion over another, hence why it makes no laws based purely on religious doctrine be it Christian, Muslim or any other.

Jefferson himself expanded on the 1st amendment and what it means in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, basically saying that the government can not enforce over religious opinions, but it can enforce over religious actions. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach [only those religious] actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

Though precedent has been part of law since the beginning, and if it were the case as you would wish to see it then numerous 'rights' would have to be revoked . .such as the right to privacy in all things, not just abortion.

I also find it a strange contradiction by pro-life advocates, most seem to be in favor of a limited and/or smaller government, yet the very laws wanted in order to ban abortion would require a more invasive and larger government to enforce.

Any conflict between Muslim nations and the USA have been based on actual acts of aggression by one or the other, not on the religious stances of either side .. I suspect that the USA would have reacted in exactly the same way if 9/11 had been done by say a Hindu based nation instead of a Muslim one.

I would say neither, I would say that it in no way controls any opinion of religion within its people, but it can and does control any action of religion within its people where that action would be detrimental to social duties or subversive of good order.

 

LOL, possibly, though to me it would be like the USA nuking the whole of Afghanistan killing all people, including women and children in retaliation for 9/11 .. though even that wouldn't really fit as the Amalekites lost at the original battle anyway . .what was the purpose of committing genocide against them for a battle they lost.

 

Not having lived then I do have the impression, from somewhere, that those were tough times for many. If you screwed up the whole family was subject to being whacked. Maybe people exercised their freedoms remembering who you were connected too as well as having the consequences somewhat more focused in the mind's eye? Political leadership would lead the military community into battle, now there is someone with some chutzpah you could vote for.

...no theologian or historian...perhaps it was a message the culture of the time understood?

 

The First Amendment is not as simple as a prohibition on establishing a religion. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law RESPECTING an establishment of religion. For instance, while displaying in a public place a copy of the Ten Commandments does not establish a religion, it is definitely RESPECTING an establishment of religion. That is as it should be, since respecting one establishment of religion creates an unequal situation for other establishments of religion.

 

I am not Catholic - I do not eat fish on Fridays and I do not have to heed what the SOFs they elect have to say on any subject

 

Nicely fleshed out Granny!

 

SOF=special ops?

 

Only a right wing American...........


Rest of the world does not automatically think of something out of a Hollywood b grade script.

SOF =Silly Old Fart

 

True, however, it cannot "prevent the free exercise" of that religion. If a monument is on public land but is funded privately, then I see no problem with a monument on public property.

 

I do. It's still PUBLIC property. You're saying that if someone can afford it they can buy the use of public property to promote their own religion....even if it were true, it isn't right.

 

Even if a monument is privately funded, it usually creates some kind of expense in maintainance for the public to bear. It ALWAYS creates an unequal situation in comparison to other religions. It IS RESPECTING that establishment of religion and that is forbidden.

 

Would you see a problem if it were a Muslim monument?

 

Privately funded monuments paid for and maintained privately is not the govt establishing anything. Taxpayers pay for that land and that includes those who wish to have the monument.