South Carolina Democrats Contempt for the Constitution

Discussion in 'Politics' started by L'Emmerdeur, Jan 6, 2014.

?

Should teacher-lead prayers in public schools be promoted by government?

  1. No. Sorry, let me amend that: Hell no.

    2 vote(s)
    100.0%
  2. Yes of course: ours is a Christian Nation. The Constitution only applies when I agree with it.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. L'Emmerdeur

    L'Emmerdeur Upright Member

    Why do they persist in attacking the law of the land?

    "South Carolina Democrats back bill calling for mandatory daily prayers in public schools"

    As is noted in a examination of this issue on the United States Courts website:

     
  2. c jay
    Brooding

    c jay Well-Known Member

    I have no problem if it is an elective, just don't ask me to attend.
     
  3. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC Donald Trump For President In 2020

    Let's take a look at what the First Amendment says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Now, let's subject the part of the Amendment that deals with religion to the South Carolina bill proposing daily mandatory prayer: The Bill, H. 3526, "would require teachers to lead a moment of silence at the beginning of each school day, during which the teacher would be allowed to deliver a prayer. Students who didn’t want to participate would be allowed to leave the classroom."

    OK. How would leading a moment of silence during which a teacher would be allowed to deliver a prayer infringe on the First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Congress isn't even involved in this bill whatsoever and it certainly isn't establishing a religion in regards to the South Carolina bill.

    Next, the First Amendment says, "Congress [cannot] prohibit the free exercise [of religion] thereof". Alright, Congress isn't prohibiting the free exercise of anything (much less religion) in regards to the South Caroline bill.

    So, what's the hubbub all about? Congress isn't establishing a religion nor is it prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I say if those Democrats want to have a moment of prayer, let them.
     
  4. L'Emmerdeur

    L'Emmerdeur Upright Member

    Somehow I doubt that you'd be willing to accept such transparently lame poppycock when it came to some gun-grabber trying to tell us that a state in the U. S. could ban all firearms, because the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.

    "First Amendment & Federalism - Does First Amendment Apply to State Governments?
    It's a Myth that the First Amendment Only Applies to the Federal Government"

     
    2 people like this.
  5. JoeNation
    Cheerful

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    Satanists Seek Statue On Oklahoma State House Steps

    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A satanic group unveiled designs Monday for a 7-foot-tall statue of Satan it wants to put at the Oklahoma state Capitol, where a Ten Commandments monument was placed in 2012.

    The New York-based Satanic Temple formally submitted its application to a panel that oversees the Capitol grounds, including an artist's rendering that depicts Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, wings and a long beard that's often used as a symbol of the occult. In the rendering, Satan is sitting in a pentagram-adorned throne with smiling children next to him.

    "The monument has been designed to reflect the views of Satanists in Oklahoma City and beyond," temple spokesman Lucien Greaves said in a statement. "The statue will also have a functional purpose as a chair where people of all ages may sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation."

    The Satanic Temple maintains that the Oklahoma Legislature's decision to authorize a privately funded Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol opened the door for its statue. The Ten Commandments monument was placed on the north steps of the building in 2012, and the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has sued to have it removed.
     
  6. David

    David Proud Enemy of Hillary

    I wonder if the ACLU will fight the satan statue as fervently as they're fighting the Ten Commandments?
     
  7. JoeNation
    Cheerful

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    I wonder what the reason for not allowing the satan statue will be? I think that this is a brilliant way to point out hypocrisy. Seems to have been lost on you.
     
  8. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC Donald Trump For President In 2020

    I'm glad you posted this, Little Joe. Here's an artist's rendering for the proposed statue:

    View attachment 2204

    Satan, of course, is a religious figure. Personally, I hope the Satanists are successful in their attempt to place their statue at the state capitol. What's your opinion on allowing this statue (or any other religious statue) on capitol grounds?

    If the Satanists are successful in their attempt, it will open the door for any religious statue on any capitol grounds across the nation. I like it.
     
  9. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC Donald Trump For President In 2020

    Where in the Second Amendment does it say anything that it only applies to the federal government?

    But, back to the First Amendment. It plainly states that Congress shall not establish religion nor shall it prohibit the free exercise [of religion]. If South Carolina Democrats want to have a prayer in school, can you explain how they are "establishing a religion" or "prohibiting the free exercise of religion"?
     
  10. JoeNation
    Cheerful

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    You definitely have that one backwards. If you read the article you know that the 10 commandments statue is already there and this satan statue is just looking to challenge that. So in reality, the 10 commandments statue is opening the door for all kinds of challenges. I seriouly doubt anyone wants a satan statue in front of any state house even Oklahoma but the first shot was taken by Christians who seem to believe that this is their country and screw the rest of everyone else.

    The goverment should never, ever, ever be in the business of promoting anybody's religion....EVER. Is that definite enough? "Cause I may have unintentionally left some wiggle room.
     
  11. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC Donald Trump For President In 2020

    Great! I sincerely hope the Satanists win and are able to place their statue on the capitol lawn. That's wonderful!!

    Yep! Isn't it great?

    Speak for yourself. I don't have a problem with religious statues on public property. I don't see where it infringes on anyone's right to practice their own religion. If the Satanists want their statue there, I say let 'em have it.

    The Constitution doesn't prevent the government from promoting religion; it prevents the government from establishing religion. The Constitution also expressly prohibits "the free exercise [of religion] thereof". So, if the government wants to promote all religions on public property and doesn't prohibit the free exercise thereof, what's the problem with the Ten Commandments or the Satanic statue?
     
  12. JoeNation
    Cheerful

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    You just have a very backwards way of looking at most issues including this one. You are completely clueless about the Constitution and have zero knowledge of the court cases that have throughout history defined the intentions of said document and yet you quote it as if you actually knew something. It's cute but again you're clueless.

    How you must admire those countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that mix government and religion and how free they are. You should really move to one of those countries to experience all the freedoms religion/government brings their people. I'm sure you'd fit right in. Don't forget to write.

    Sympathy for the Devil in OK City

    01/07/14 04:00 PM—Updated 01/08/14 03:48 AM
    By Steve Benen
    The grounds of Oklahoma’s state Capitol are getting a little more national media attention today than usual, and under the circumstances, locals probably aren’t pleased by the story that’s brought the spotlight (via Chris Hayes).
    The Satanic church that applied for a permit to erect a monument to Satan next to the Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma state-capitol building has unveiled its proposed design.

    The 7-ft.-tall (2.1 m) sculpture would feature Satan depicted in the form of Baphomet, a bearded, goat-headed, winged hominid with horns seated on a throne beneath a pentagram with two smiling children to either side.​
    Regular readers of our “This Week in God” weekend feature may remember this story, which has been percolating for a while. Republican state lawmakers in Oklahoma started the dispute a few years ago by authorizing the placement of a privately-funded Ten Commandments monument on the capitol groups.

    This, in turn, inadvertently opened the door to religious monuments Republican state lawmakers don’t like, including this one from a New York-based Satanic group, which has a 7-ft.-tall sculpture in mind for Oklahoma City.

    As Time’s report added, a number of other groups have made requests to erect monuments, “including a Hindu group, an animal-rights group and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

    All of the monuments, including the Satanic sculpture, would be privately financed, and wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime. These groups are simply asking for is comparable public space the state legislature already set aside for the Christian monument.

    As one might imagine, state officials aren’t exactly pleased, but this brings us back to the underlying principle at stake: in an open forum, the government can’t play favorites. If the government is going to devote space to promoting one religious monument, celebrating the tenets of one faith, it can’t deny space to other religions that expect equal treatment. It’s easy to imagine the Oklahoma state capitol eventually reserving space for everyone: Baptists, Buddhists, and the Baha’i; as well as Sikhs, Scientologists, and Satanists.

    There are, after all, no second-class Americans citizens when it comes to the First Amendment. If one group has the right to erect a privately funded monument, everyone has the right to erect a privately funded monument.

    Oklahoma will probably be less than enthusiastic about welcoming a permanent Satanic display to sit near the Ten Commandments display, but they probably should have thought this through before. They opened the door, and it’s going to get crowded as others walk through it.
     
  13. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC Donald Trump For President In 2020

    You stupid moron. The article you posted stated the obvious reason exactly WHY our government doesn't "establish" religion and doesn't prohibit the free exercise thereof.

    From your article:
    This repeats exactly what I said in Post #8. The government can allow a Christian-oriented monument, but they must also allow a Satanic-oriented monument. I've said that all along. Were you not listening?
     
  14. JoeNation
    Cheerful

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    Au contraire mon ami.....

    Christianity is clearly being favored by you Oklahoma losers regardless of your flippant personal statements to the contrary. But call me some more names, I'm sure that will bolster your argument. :rolleyes:


    The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .​
    The Establishment Clause is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two clauses make up what are called the "Religion Clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]
    The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
     
  15. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC Donald Trump For President In 2020

    No contraire at all. I said let the Satanists have their monument. It's only fair. Are you against that?
     
  16. JoeNation
    Cheerful

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    What you actually said was that the Satan group opened the door to everything else but in reality, it was the Christian group that opened the door to everyone else. Again, your backwards take is once again apparent.
     
  17. JoeNation
    Cheerful

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    Yes, I am against any and all religions, beliefs systems, or cults being allowed to be associated with the government of this country. PERIOD! END OF STORY. They demean the government and gain undue credibility for themselves. Would you agree?
     
  18. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC Donald Trump For President In 2020

    Well, see, that's your problem. The government can be associated with religion as long as it's fair and equitable in its treatment.

    That's not for me decide. As long as the government treats every religion the same it remains within its Constitutional parameters.
     
  19. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC Donald Trump For President In 2020

    The meaning of what I said, in case you didn't comprehend it, was the Satanists will open the door to the challenging of just one, particular religion's monument being displayed on government grounds. If they're successful in their attempt (by getting their monument displayed), it will open the door to any and all religions having their monuments displayed. I like it. Don't you think that's fair, equitable and Constitutional?
     
  20. L'Emmerdeur

    L'Emmerdeur Upright Member

    You're correct; the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that it only applies to the federal government. However, the 10th Amendment reserves any powers not granted to the federal government to the states or the people. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution of the United States, which delineates the federal government's function and limitations, and in fact does not say anything about what a state can or cannot do in regard to regulation of firearms. The 14th Amendment, on the other hand, extends the protections of the Constitution to all citizens of the United States, and that includes both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I guess if some Dominionist gun nut thinks they can ignore the 14th amendment because they don't like it, then they might as well decide that they can pick and choose which other parts of the Constitution they want to accept as applying to the states or not. Of course such a person is displaying contempt for the Constitution.

    Actually, the 1st Amendment plainly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." It doesn't "plainly state" what you say it does, and your lie will not change that fact. "No law" is an unequivocal statement with an undeniable meaning. As for "establishment of religion," that's less clear, but only to somebody who's ignorant of history. For such ignorant people, here's a basic definition of the meaning of term:
    Any law which promotes religion, or supports religious activities, is unconstitutional. This is clearly stated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township:

    Your attempt to subvert Constitution of the United States is a failure, and if those drones in South Carolina pass their ridiculous bill into law, it will be rightly struck down as unconstitutional.
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page