Ecmandu wrote:If you’re ideological, you can play a lot of cryptic word games in rulings. It would be ‘legal’ but not in the spirit of the law.
Mowk wrote:The Supreme Court collectively has that capacity to rule an amendment to the constitution as unconstitutional. That is all about the rights and wrongs of human activity.
Mowk wrote:Laws are passed because behaviors are determined to be good or bad, moral or immoral.
Mowk wrote:The pledge of allegiance was a fine article until some right wing religious nutjob insisted on adding the phrase under God, to the idea of One Nation.
obsrvr524 wrote:It is interesting to see how many people have been fooled into believing the opposite (rewritten history) of the truth.
Ecmandu wrote:The judges trump massively elected were put there because he doesn’t want to be criminally indicted after he leaves office. Lower courts, appellate courts, the Supreme Court. Etc... he’s covering his ass by appointing 230 psychopaths. This is nothing like when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision (partly lines) gave Bush the presidency even though he lost the electoral college.
This is much worse.
Trump in one administration made the courts stronger than the congress and executive branch.
Doesn’t matter if Biden wins anymore.
Doesn’t matter if everyone in Congress is a Democrat.
Trump already won the war of destroying democracy in America.
The only other option is civil war.
obsrvr524 wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:It is interesting to see how many people have been fooled into believing the opposite (rewritten history) of the truth.
Case to the point:Ecmandu wrote:The judges trump massively elected were put there because he doesn’t want to be criminally indicted after he leaves office. Lower courts, appellate courts, the Supreme Court. Etc... he’s covering his ass by appointing 230 psychopaths. This is nothing like when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision (partly lines) gave Bush the presidency even though he lost the electoral college.
This is much worse.
Trump in one administration made the courts stronger than the congress and executive branch.
Doesn’t matter if Biden wins anymore.
Doesn’t matter if everyone in Congress is a Democrat.
Trump already won the war of destroying democracy in America.
The only other option is civil war.
Judgmental obviously having no knowledge of the reality - Preach first opinion. Defend it to the end.
obsrvr524 wrote:As I said.
obsrvr524 wrote:Do those totally uneducated opinions have anything at all to do with the separation of church and state?
Yeah I didn't think so.
Don't you have that backwards? The US Pledge of Allegiance originally had the "One nation under God" phrase. It was a left wing secular "nutjob" who took it out in favor of his religion - Secularism. And the pledge is to the nation, not to any presumed God.
It is interesting to see how many people have been fooled into believing the opposite (rewritten history) of the truth.
That is where many people misunderstand. Judges are NOT involved the right or wrong of any law.
Judges do not make the laws
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices.. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.
Mowk wrote:I think it is you that just didn't get it, forwards or backwards.
Addition of "under God" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance.
An early pledge was created in 1887 by Captain George T. Balch,[13] a veteran of the Civil War, who later became auditor of the New York Board of Education.[14] Balch's pledge, which was recited contemporaneously with Bellamy's until the 1923 National Flag Conference, read:[13]
We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; one country, one language, one flag!
The pledge that later evolved into the form used today was composed in August 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist,
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all
In 1906, The Daughters of the American Revolution's magazine, The American Monthly, used the following wording for the pledge of allegiance, based on Balch's Pledge:
I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands. I pledge my head and my heart to God and my country. One country, one language and one flag
June 22, 1942:[27]
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
February 12, 1948,[28] he led the society in reciting the pledge with the two words "under God" added. He said that the words came from Lincoln's Gettysburg AddressDuring the Cold War era, many Americans wanted to distinguish the United States from the state atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist countries, a view that led to support for the words "under God" to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mowk wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:That is where many people misunderstand. Judges are NOT involved the right or wrong of any law.
If an amendment to the constitution is challenged in court it damn straight is the responsibility of the Court to rule on it's constitutionality, particularly if the challenge is based on a question of the laws constitutionality.
Mowk wrote:Judges do not make the laws
I never said they did, that is the responsibility of the Houses of Congress and the President. On that we agree. But they can unmake a law, over rule it. The Three branches of governance are based on a system of checks and balances. If a law written by the legislative branch is signed by the President it becomes law, and if the constitutionality of that law is challenged it is the courts responsibility to rule on the challenge.
I'll stand my ground on that account.
Mowk wrote:Our nation currently has been overrun by the religious right and doesn't practice the separation.
Mowk wrote:The first amendment prohibits the state from promoting one religion over another. But that is exactly what takes place every time someone is asked to swear an oath with their hand on a bible and including the words so help you god.
Mowk wrote:By printing, on our currency "In God We Trust", that separation has been corrupted.
Mowk wrote:I think it important to note that it forbids Congress from promoting one religion over others, and our right wing legislature is doing just that by promoting Christianity over other religions.
promethean75 wrote:"He doesn’t give a fuck about America, never has."
This may not be true. For instance, if he gives a fuck about at least one thing or person in america, AND, we establish that america is not an entity itself but rather either or both a location or/and a collection of individuals, we would be able to say he gives a fuck about america, since he likes one of the things or/and people that is either at this location, or is part of the collection of things that is america.
Mowk wrote:
Our nation currently has been overrun by the religious right and doesn't practice the separation.
That is just ignorance.
They never say which god (which religion) and if the person doesn't believe in ANY god, then what difference does it make if he swears under it?
The freedom of religion is about getting to choose whatever beliefs you want. It doesn't say that there can be religion in government as long as it doesn't force you to do the same.
Mowk wrote:WIth regard to the pledge I was speaking in reference our current pledge, the last change made was to add the words [add the words back], and it was made by the religious right. It was a Democrat who is credited for the legislation to have the words added.
Mowk wrote:A governance founded on the separation of church and state should not pass legislature that endorses any religion over the nation. I would say I am agnostic, and I get real sick of a government that thinks it can push a god over the nation. About as sick as I've become of reading your hog wash. The first amendment protects your opinion but the truth is what it is and your opinion doesn't match up to the truth of it.
Mowk wrote:You are vastly too overgeneralizing to speak to any real specificity and the closest your statements come to the truth is half way.
Mowk wrote:Mowk wrote:
Our nation currently has been overrun by the religious right and doesn't practice the separation.
That is just ignorance.
It is self evident. Observable. If you find ignorance in it, it is your ignorance you aren't seeing.
Mowk wrote:The freedom of religion is about getting to choose whatever beliefs you want.
It doesn't say that there can be religion in government as long as it doesn't force you to do the same.
It doesn't say that there can't be religion in government as long as it doesn't force you to do the same.
Ecmandu wrote:It’s pretty much absurd what you’re arguing obsrvr.
The constitution let no women vote and defined blacks as 3/5ths of a person. Actually it went even further and defined people who could vote as white, male property owners.
What side are you on?
It is "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion". That is what you don't seem to accept.
Note the shift from religion to the relationship with God. Those are not the same category, the latter generally, but not always, a tiny subset of the former. Religions are extremely social phenomena, even the most secular of religions - certain strands of Buddhism - still notice that meditation improves in the presence of other meditators and in dynamic interactions with masters. Religions bind families, but also bind beyond family, creating values to unify people (and also to unify them against others). This can all be for good or ill, but religions is absolutely not a private matter only for most people.Mowk wrote:It is "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion". That is what you don't seem to accept.
I feel the door swings both ways. They are one and the same. Any relationship with a god is first and foremost a personal one,
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users