Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by MobBoss, Jul 14, 2009.
sekular kitteh is in ur gubmint, takin' ur jebus
Well, at least the churches are trying their best not to have any taxpayer money spent in incarcerating pedophile pastors and priests.
Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
I totally lost track of where I was in this thread, lol.
High level joke works on so many levels.
Also, I did include a question. Would those churchgoers understand that I meant Satan, as he is supposedly "God" for Satanists?
Why dont you go try it and then ask them. But I would think that since you would be directing towards the church in question, they would assume you meant their God, not the God of the devilworshippers. Which only makes sense, since they are not a bunch of mind-readers either.
The Pledge of Allegiance establishes religion, words on a coin or building do not.
its part of the star spangled banner, actully, it is part of our heritage
How is that relevant to anything? It's still unconstitutional.
why is it unconstitutional?
read the Constitution and you will know.
read these please
there is alot more there, do you now disagree with our national heritage
by your reasonings these men would be in violation of the consitition they wrote
I have, and I cant find anything that says mere words on a coin or building establishes religion. That would be truly bizarre in a country so steeped in religious rhetoric. The Framers worried that Congress would legislate religion or one religion over another (same thing actually), that was the concern expressed by the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson inspiring his metaphorical wall of separation. C'mon, you can do better than that response...
Well in actual truth let me poose this question, if national support from the majority is for this then is it not allowed. The ruling right of any body is decided by the people under them. Majority rules, and let me posse this hypothetical situation lets say a vote goes to all states stating the national realigion is to be Protastant Chritiantiy, and it passes with majority support meaning the church would be intergrated, would that not force congress to amend the Constition to allow for church intergration, or does a peice of paper overule the majority?
Constitution > majority of populace.
I have a question to interject - I couldn't find the thread here and maybe it wasn't, but I seem to recall reading about a US court case recently where it was ruled that some person writing "Allah Akbar" on paper bills couldn't be punished/was permissable. Does anyone else know about this or I am I mistaken in my recollection - if you have a direct link to a source it would be great.
Would love to write "Cthulu ftaghn" just for the sake of it, say on bills you leave as tips at a restaurant
then that means the declartion of indepdance would give us the right to overthrow the government, read it, your statement goes agasint the very document that gave us freedom and the founding idea of the nation
Note that Jefferson preferred to think of Jesus as a great ethical philosopher, not as divine. His "bible" removed all references to miracles. He called himself a Christian, but really was no more so than Gandhi. His views were Unitarian and pretty much Deist, but his political rivals liked to portray him as a radical atheist who wanted to use the government to ban any bible but his own and destroy all religious institutions. Jefferson's "Wall of Separation between Church and State" was not a particularly popular interpretation of the first amendment, and was likely meant to assuage the fear that he would try to destroy the churches of America. (Plus, it was to a Baptist Church, who he would know held separation of church and state long before it was enshrined in the bill of rights.)
I don't see how writing "Allah Akbar" or "Cthulu ftaghn" on a dollar bill would be punished any more than writing www.wheresgeorge.com on it to help the website track it. I've know plenty of people that have done that and none have been punished.
If I recall, if at least 2/3 (or is it 3/4?) of a bill is intact then it is still legal tender. I think I heard of it in regards to how much could be torn or cut off and still be able to use it, but it may also mean that up to a third (or fourth) of the surface could be written on without changing its worth.
I believe that defacing coins (and maybe any money) is technically a crime, but have never heard of anyone being punished for using those machines that flatten and impress things on pennies.
I'm not talking about the declaration. The declaration also has no legality... it's just a document.
Separate names with a comma.