Wrong, sorry but your wrong. y do u think jesus founded america............? thats right.........................
American Atheists Lose Fight to Keep 9/11 Cross from Museum
- Thread starter BvBPL
- Start date
Wrong, sorry but your wrong. y do u think jesus founded america............? thats right.........................
warpus
In pork I trust
This was a sillly artefact, but also a silly lawsuit. Then again, these guys probably sue every single instance of the spirit of the law being broken, when it comes to the separation of church and state. Even the ones they are likely to lose. But I'm guessing.
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
Guess I didn't make my self clear enough there. I support the lawsuit taking them down in public schools.
Except you're getting the whole "spirit" wrong to begin with. For one thing, I don't like the "spirit" mindset anyway because who gives a crap what ol' James and George (Mason, not the other one) specifically thought? What they wrote is what matters, and let's take a look at that, as "Separation of church and state" simply does not exist in there.
1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America said:
The wording is so blatantly obvious that it is to prevent government from interfering with religion or making an official state religion. We have no Church of England over here where our head of state is also the supreme religious figure of the church as well. It is not meant to to prevent religions from being a part of public life.
Which religion, pray tell, is specifically being put above others with a cross? Baptist? Roman Catholic? Seventh Day Aventist? No single official organized religion is placed about another by any public display of religious artifacts like a cross or the ten commandments or a menorah. There is no government sanction of one over the other.
It truly boggles my mind how the absurdly incorrect reading.... no, I can't even call it a reading because the words simply are not there to support it... of the 1st Amendment has ever come so far.
warpus
In pork I trust
Dude, you're American, you should know very well that if you're going to attempt to interpret the constitution, you've also got to look at what the courts have said about that very passage over the years.
In short, the text does not exist in a vacuum, it exists alongside with all of the interpretations by the supreme court (and maybe other courts?) of it that have happened since it was put into use.
I'm surprised you don't know this, as an American. I'm Canadian and I'm aware of this! Maybe you're just conveniently forgetting about it?
In short, the text does not exist in a vacuum, it exists alongside with all of the interpretations by the supreme court (and maybe other courts?) of it that have happened since it was put into use.
I'm surprised you don't know this, as an American. I'm Canadian and I'm aware of this! Maybe you're just conveniently forgetting about it?
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 11,719
Plain-text interpretations of the Constitution make me want to kick a puppy.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
That doesn't mean it cannot be overturned, cause it can. And that's apparently what bhsup is pointing at.
warpus
In pork I trust
bhsup is disagreeing with the exact text of the amendment. He is at least a hundred years behind in his argument; he needs to be referring to what the courts have ruled on this amendment since it was implemented as well.
If we were talking about this 10 years after this amendment passed, then he would probably have a point, as the courts would still be referring to the exact text of the amendment in question. But we're well past that..
As for laws can be overturned, sure. My issue is with the incorrect way that he is attempting to interpret the constitution, not with any specific laws that may or may not be passed or overturned.
Dude, you're American, you should know very well that if you're going to attempt to interpret the constitution, you've also got to look at what the courts have said about that very passage over the years.
In short, the text does not exist in a vacuum, it exists alongside with all of the interpretations by the supreme court (and maybe other courts?) of it that have happened since it was put into use.
I'm surprised you don't know this, as an American. I'm Canadian and I'm aware of this! Maybe you're just conveniently forgetting about it?
No no, I do know this. But the Supreme Court is wrong. Really, America would be well served by abolishing it and replacing it with me. That said, even though I know they are wrong, I am not advocating open rebellion. I acknowledge that this is how or system has evolved and painfully accept that, but it doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
I was a dick before I became a Christian, and can still be a dick sometimes, but I was never an atheist. Always knew there is a God, and assume God always knew there is a me, but wasn't a Christian either until I became one. Kind of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers when they put a pod under your bed, but good. Everything is changed, the weight of the world lifted off, but you look the same. Its better than having your body snatched by an alien pod because you are also the same person, and that's kinda nice.
I'd say some atheists are dicks, just like some Christians are. See: People suck.
I figure a lot of people died there and there was a cross on their common grave. There is precedent I believe.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
America operates under a Common Law system, doesn't it? So by definition, the correct interpretation of the Constitution is whatever precedent says it is. (Unless American constitutional law operates differently? It might do, I'm honestly ignorant on that front.)
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
There is no correct interpretation. There is a dominant interpretation. The US constitution was partially a product of the internalised sexual repression that was present with the Founding Father. Similar themes can be found in the work of Foucault.
They gave themselves that power in, IIRC 1807? Hold on, I need to check that...
My bad. 1803. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
My bad. 1803. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
The common law doesn't really presume to pronounce truth. When higher courts make a judgment, they're simply stating their opinion, and people can disagree with those opinions. But courts are imbued with legal authority, while the average person with an opinion isn't. It's not an infallibility thing, just the application of stare decisis.
You could equally say they gave you your 1st amendment rights (or any other constitutional rights).
madviking
north american scum
i stopped being an Atheist and became just an atheist. the former are your intolerable types, as illustrated in op.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I don't need to be an atheist to be a dick, I don't need to be a dick to be an atheist.
No idea what that meant, but it sounded like a profound statement.
No idea what that meant, but it sounded like a profound statement.
warpus
In pork I trust
I was born an atheist, was enrolled into the catholic church against my will, convinced that God exists, and then eventually figured out that it isn't true and reverted to my atheist state.
I am only a dick to people who knock on my door early in the morning, jerks, and Tottenham fans.
I am only a dick to people who knock on my door early in the morning, jerks, and Tottenham fans.
With Jesus being such an important figure in the Muslim mythology, it is no wonder the attack reduced two tall building to a symbol of this figure. Such a miracle of Muslim faith deserves a prominent display in a museum.
