Global Warming?

[toppop52]

More evidence of GW. Yesterday the temp here in central Maine was in the low 60's (w/o the sun shining). When I was awake- 4:30am I could hear the frogs outside. The grass is still rich, not brown. The horses were sweating up easily due to having their winter coats. It rained today. 20 years ago I would be shoveling snow right now!

It's currently in the 30's in most of Maine and October was below normal in all 48 contiguous states.

 

[EE_Bota]

It's currently in the 30's in most of Maine and October was below normal in all 48 contiguous states.

Slightly below normal in NC today. I doubt it is evidence of anything though.

 

[Loren49]

First, Jefferson wrote that letter years after the Constitution was law and simply sent to a friend, and making no law regarding religion, is saying no promotion, no detraction, hands off. It isn't, doesn't and never will; mean that you can't pray in school or have the Ten Commandments in a public park. There is no twisted way to make it say that. I believe Jefferson was correct in wanting a wall between the two, but he never said they were mutual enemies.

I would argue that a teacher lead Christian, (or Islamic or Buddist or Hindu or Muslim) prayer is clearly Unconstitutional and the Supreme Cort has ruled this way. Under our Constitution this is how it works. Also, I taught in a public school for 15 years and anyone can pray whenever they want. It is simply Unconstitutional for me to lead them in a prayer professing my religion.
The Ten Commandment can be posted by any private institution or individual. A specific religion can not be prommoted by a public institution. The Courts agree with this no matter how confident you may be in your interpretation of the Constitution. If your local county placed a sign with Muslim or Buddist teachings on their property I predict you may see the problem of promoting a religion on people of other beliefs.

Our Court System has made these rulings:
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional

No matter how strongly you disagree with the Constitutionally established courts these rulings are the law of the land so it appears there is some separation of church and state.

Any examples of countries controlled by their religious leaders (past or present) that have worked out well?

The global warming connection --- lots of hot air!


Loren

 

[houstonscott]

I would argue that a teacher lead Christian, (or Islamic or Buddist or Hindu or Muslim) prayer is clearly Unconstitutional and the Supreme Cort has ruled this way. Under our Constitution this is how it works. Also, I taught in a public school for 15 years and anyone can pray whenever they want. It is simply Unconstitutional for me to lead them in a prayer professing my religion.
The Ten Commandment can be posted by any private institution or individual. A specific religion can not be prommoted by a public institution. The Courts agree with this no matter how confident you may be in your interpretation of the Constitution. If your local county placed a sign with Muslim or Buddist teachings on their property I predict you may see the problem of promoting a religion on people of other beliefs.

Our Court System has made these rulings:
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional

No matter how strongly you disagree with the Constitutionally established courts these rulings are the law of the land so it appears there is some separation of church and state.

Any examples of countries controlled by their religious leaders (past or present) that have worked out well?

The global warming connection --- lots of hot air!


Loren

I would simply ask "what law did congress make" in all of the above. Remember too the SC has made up their purpose, it's not in the constitution they make these constitutional determinations.

HS

 

[Gator6x4]

I would simply ask "what law did congress make" in all of the above. Remember too the SC has made up their purpose, it's not in the constitution they make these constitutional determinations.

HS

I take from your response then that you believe in "Cherry Picking" the laws you will obey. I also believe that if Congress enacted a law that says xyz religion, worship of a turnip is the religion of the land and was to be observed by all you would be comfortable with that.

Our forefathers were smarter than a lot of people give them credit. They knew politics and religion were both volatile topics. Mix them and you will have polarization and eventually an explosion so they crafted the First Amendment in such a way to prevent the two from being intermingled. They also knew the United States was then comprised of people from different locales and different religious beliefs and would continue to be so in the future.

Individual rights are there in the First Amendment, but a governmental forced religious belief or government mandated religious belief is not.

 

[toppop52]

I would argue that a teacher lead Christian, (or Islamic or Buddist or Hindu or Muslim) prayer is clearly Unconstitutional and the Supreme Cort has ruled this way. Under our Constitution this is how it works. Also, I taught in a public school for 15 years and anyone can pray whenever they want. It is simply Unconstitutional for me to lead them in a prayer professing my religion.
The Ten Commandment can be posted by any private institution or individual. A specific religion can not be prommoted by a public institution. The Courts agree with this no matter how confident you may be in your interpretation of the Constitution. If your local county placed a sign with Muslim or Buddist teachings on their property I predict you may see the problem of promoting a religion on people of other beliefs.

Our Court System has made these rulings:
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional

No matter how strongly you disagree with the Constitutionally established courts these rulings are the law of the land so it appears there is some separation of church and state.

Any examples of countries controlled by their religious leaders (past or present) that have worked out well?

The global warming connection --- lots of hot air!


Loren

Of which you're a major contributor.

I never said it wasn't law today, I said the Constitution did not specifically separate the two as mutually exclusive, it simply disallowed the promotion or denial thereof.Those saying so are just plain wrong, were yesterday, will be tomorrow. There are many laws today "ruled constitutional", that bear little or no resemblance to the original words or meanings.

And I see you skipped responding to the fact that you and many liberals want to quote Jefferson's letter as if it were some official document actually related in time somehow to the Constitution as written, when in fact it was a personal opinion written decades later and a private communication with a friend. Typical of your ilk, though.

 

[toppop52]

Individual rights are there in the First Amendment, but a governmental forced religious belief or government mandated religious belief is not.

I couldn't agree more, but that is not the same as forced separation. It only prevents promotion or denial. If a congressman should wish to say grace before a luncheon with mixed religions or no religious people at all, he is allowed to by the original meaning. As would all the other religions.

 

[turnkey4099]

Of which you're a major contributor.

I never said it wasn't law today, I said the Constitution did not specifically separate the two as mutually exclusive, it simply disallowed the promotion or denial thereof.Those saying so are just plain wrong, were yesterday, will be tomorrow. There are many laws today "ruled constitutional", that bear little or no resemblance to the original words or meanings.

And I see you skipped responding to the fact that you and many liberals want to quote Jefferson's letter as if it were some official document actually related in time somehow to the Constitution as written, when in fact it was a personal opinion written decades later and a private communication with a friend. Typical of your ilk, though.

"I never said it wasn't law today, I said the Constitution did not specifically separate the two as mutually exclusive, it simply disallowed the promotion or denial thereof".

But you are all for posting the 10 commandments in schools. If that is not promoting a specific religion, nothing is. Try to stick to one side of the fence.

Harry K

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Of which you're a major contributor.

I never said it wasn't law today, I said the Constitution did not specifically separate the two as mutually exclusive, it simply disallowed the promotion or denial thereof.Those saying so are just plain wrong, were yesterday, will be tomorrow. There are many laws today "ruled constitutional", that bear little or no resemblance to the original words or meanings.

And I see you skipped responding to the fact that you and many liberals want to quote Jefferson's letter as if it were some official document actually related in time somehow to the Constitution as written, when in fact it was a personal opinion written decades later and a private communication with a friend. Typical of your ilk, though.

Isn't this the First Amendment Randy?

Congress shall not allow any reference to or discussion of religion in the public square, and shall prohibit the free exercise thereof if the religion teaches something we disagree with; and abridge freedom of speech, and of the press, if we disagree with the speech and deem it to be “hate” speech; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances unless we agree with the petitioners.

 

[toppop52]

"I never said it wasn't law today, I said the Constitution did not specifically separate the two as mutually exclusive, it simply disallowed the promotion or denial thereof".

But you are all for posting the 10 commandments in schools. If that is not promoting a specific religion, nothing is. Try to stick to one side of the fence.

Harry K

Try to get some common sense! Or at least some basic understanding and reading comprehension skills. I'm not saying the government should place anything in particular, anywhere. My point is, a writing by Christians, Buddhists or Muslims , in a public place is no different than a quote by JFK, Abraham Lincoln or Chevy Chase. People read them, if they believe them good for them, if they don't they move on. You are not protecting anyone by preventing these, you are restricting the rights of many.