tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post7485542768883440332..comments2023-11-03T05:50:18.057-04:00Comments on Libertas and Latte: On Religious Liberty and the ConstitutionConstitutional Insurgenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-84894878542867265252014-10-16T20:47:19.590-04:002014-10-16T20:47:19.590-04:00If you don't like an invocation, ignore it. Go...If you don't like an invocation, ignore it. Going out of your way to "remove" it is censorship.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-81577533533893228202014-10-08T00:05:46.219-04:002014-10-08T00:05:46.219-04:00It's the devolution of our society. We have pr...It's the devolution of our society. We have precious few [or any?] people in the caliber of the Founders.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-65321808221429080352014-10-07T19:03:41.756-04:002014-10-07T19:03:41.756-04:00It's hard to fathom how guys like Franklin and...It's hard to fathom how guys like Franklin and Jefferson, some 230 years ago, could have been far more enlightened than Supreme Court justices are today but damned if you didn't just provide some prima facie evidence for exactly that. Well done. Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-24932962461583298822014-10-06T23:36:39.560-04:002014-10-06T23:36:39.560-04:00I fully endorse that idea!I fully endorse that idea!Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-80445508095276686412014-10-06T18:19:09.290-04:002014-10-06T18:19:09.290-04:00That's fine with me. I was only trying to say...That's fine with me. I was only trying to say that our laws and the 10 commandments intersect quite a bit which I think confuses people. It would be equally fine for me if the government transformed this concept and said we are the nation of human rights and individual liberty as a quick example.Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05287399775879832602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-35402066400401333232014-10-06T15:59:55.106-04:002014-10-06T15:59:55.106-04:00I certainly have no issue with the inclusion of th...I certainly have no issue with the inclusion of the 10 Commandments as part of a larger tribute to our system of jurisprudence...but the symbology by itself, is as much an endorsement of religion as would a display of Hadith's or Sura's.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-2864373872967472172014-10-05T23:01:39.101-04:002014-10-05T23:01:39.101-04:00islam, unfortunately not a legal one. One of many...islam, unfortunately not a legal one. One of many absurd constructs allowed to fester in society...<br /><br />Yes I agree, people should not be forced to pray at governmental proceedings.<br />As far as the 10 commandments being displayed in front of a court of law, I'm not so determined. If people are so inclined to remove such things, then I don't want to ever see a mosque as I drive from here to there.<br /><br />Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05287399775879832602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-6963714289345032192014-10-05T22:40:45.768-04:002014-10-05T22:40:45.768-04:00You realize that the notion that Islam isn't a...You realize that the notion that Islam isn't a religion, is a personal opinion not a legal one.<br /><br />Regarding "changing the channel"...we're talking here about government venues, not commercial. If I don't wish to hear an invocation at my Town Council, should I avoid participation in government? Likewise, who is harmed by removing such government endorsement? Pray before [or after] [or during, silently] the activity is you so desire, don't hold the public hostage to a belief system, when such is not a function of government.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-82602742721633754682014-10-05T22:32:59.286-04:002014-10-05T22:32:59.286-04:00I don't favor government endorsing religion. ...I don't favor government endorsing religion. I will admit that religions which are not religions, islam being a cult,or possibly theocracy, should be dealt with.<br /><br />I'm going to say I think there is much evil being done under the cover of some of our freedoms here in the US. islam a prime example. What if you and I go up the mountain for a few weeks and come back declaring all women under 150 lbs are required to ear bikinis year round. And all those opposed het their heads chopped off. That we lay down just because some people - muslims and dumbasses - refer to islam as a religion is one of our big problems here.<br />Back on topic I don't understand why religions can't be ignored by those who wish to not include them selves. Change the channel. Don't participate. etc.<br />Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05287399775879832602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-65814268425157535112014-10-05T22:12:51.832-04:002014-10-05T22:12:51.832-04:00I completely understand your position on Islam [I ...I completely understand your position on Islam [I think]. But if you are going to allow government to endorse religion, it likewise cannot be sect-specific. It would have to be across the board. I certainly don't favor that, as I'm far less inclined to want Muslim prayers before government events than Christian.<br /><br />"This is the core principle of why and how America was formed. Individual liberty."<br /><br />Yet our guiding document does not enumerate the role of government to endorse religion. As I wrote above, it's not there. Our individual liberty is not harmed by government having a completely [and Constitutionally] neutral position. As long as our religious liberty is protected by law. <br /><br />I'm about to dip into the SMS [still on Hawaii time]. Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-18771901521332601492014-10-05T22:04:35.555-04:002014-10-05T22:04:35.555-04:00Maybe I was confusing. You're losing me. I f...Maybe I was confusing. You're losing me. I favor nothing related to islam. I point out that obama encourages and heavily supports islam in the US and the world, and takes direct actions to injure Christianity. The examples are many.<br /><br />"Legislative branch cannot hope to apply law fairly if government endorses the validity of a belief system that resides with individual citizens" Huh? This is the core principle of why and how America was formed. Individual liberty. Maybe I've had too much wine.Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05287399775879832602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-58905419252739440542014-10-05T22:02:08.699-04:002014-10-05T22:02:08.699-04:00Kid, the formation of the US government was inform...Kid, the formation of the US government was informed by many sources. The few Commandments that are indirectly enshrined in US law, are also fund in natural law. The point is, a citizens right to religious liberty is not enhanced [but rather diluted] by association with government.<br /><br />Given your odd comment about Obama and Islam, I'm surprised that you would favor legal precedence by which Islamic activities could occur through the venue of government, like we see Christianity. <br /><br />Further, the Legislative branch cannot hope to apply law fairly if government endorses the validity of a belief system that resides within the souls of individual citizens. How can the legislative branch apply law to something one cannot prove? Our system has enough problems dealing with the tangible. You opine that when religious belief is institutionalized in government, nobody is being forced to embrace said religion. True.<br /><br />But the absence of that endorsement in government does not injure or degrade an individuals embrace of religion.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-60545923309664735902014-10-05T20:46:50.737-04:002014-10-05T20:46:50.737-04:00CI, Well, that's where it gets tricky. First ...CI, Well, that's where it gets tricky. First off our government was formed heavily influenced by the Christian religion. Not the worst thing, but the point is No one is trying to force anyone to embrace any religion (Except for obama and islam)<br />Many of our laws were formed based on the common rule of law from the 10 commandments. Don't lie, kill, steal from me, or mess with my wife. So how to people disassociate basic common law that any sane person recognizes from the bible. Difficult. How does a legislative branch of our government disassociate itself from basic common law that happens to align with Christian teachings. It can't. Until someone tries to force you to go to church, I say chill.Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05287399775879832602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-14643836703493760872014-10-05T13:41:35.865-04:002014-10-05T13:41:35.865-04:00As a fellow devout Agnostic, I think that the reli...As a fellow devout Agnostic, I think that the religiously inclined have every measure of religious liberty protected by the Constitution, yet still fight to have government act as a venue to proselytize their belief system. The Constitution does not protect a right to use government as this type of venue. <br /><br />They use the vagueness of the label 'public' to cry foul when they do not get their way, where it regards government venues.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-45325589794462791212014-10-05T10:11:22.987-04:002014-10-05T10:11:22.987-04:00"“When you’re not religious or are of another..."“When you’re not religious or are of another faith and you get prayed at during events, it’s really very grating.”<br />...excerpted from a cease and desist letter sent to the University of Tennessee at Knoxville objecting to a team prayer at football games. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5936<br />Srsly??? <br /><br />The problem, as it seems to me, is that the FFRF and other groups are attempting to use the power of government to do just that. Institutionalize not the neutrality between beliefs ensconced in the Constitution, but active suppression of any public expression of any belief but theirs.<br /> As a devout agnostic I don't have a dog in this fight but I think you're drawing too fine a distinction between the respective world views. Government shouldn't be endorsing or enforcing either.viburnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15381796879179539552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-77692220479322631612014-10-04T21:34:23.753-04:002014-10-04T21:34:23.753-04:00I understand your position, but I would argue that...I understand your position, but I would argue that it's based upon a faulty premise.<br /><br />If I may speak for Atheists, the issues they raise and the cases they bring aren't motivated by a sense of offense. If that were the case, they would protest any display of symbology or religious activity. What they oppose, is the display and activity of religion on government premises or as a function of government. If you discovered an institutionalization or endorsement of Atheism in conjunction with the function of government, you would likewise have every right to bring suit, as it would be unconstitutional.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-41080824809527171582014-10-04T21:03:48.868-04:002014-10-04T21:03:48.868-04:00Just speaking in regard to the main point....
I th...Just speaking in regard to the main point....<br />I think atheists go too far with their "I'm offended anytime I see a religious display in public"<br /><br />Well, I can't tell you how often I'm offended by what I see in public but I don't run around trying to sue all or any of them. I look the other way and this is what they should do. To demand people cannot show religion in public is a restriction of rights, just as my demanding for example, that I never ever see another gay pride parade. But there are a zillion examples.Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05287399775879832602noreply@blogger.com