• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Judge Dismisses case over National Prayer Day

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,705
Location
The Real World.

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...op-gov-perrys-sponsorship-texas-prayer-rally/

Judge dismissed the lawsuit brought against Gov. Perry for sponsoring a Texas Prayer Day. The suit was brought on by the Freedom From Religion organization, who sued because they felt 'excluded'.

A terrible standard, and they did not sue because they felt excluded, but because even if you think a valedictorian is an individual acting on their on behalf not representing the government, the farking governor most certainly does.
 

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
451
Location
Knob Noster, MO
A terrible standard, and they did not sue because they felt excluded...

"U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller said the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued against Perry's involvement based merely on feelings of exclusion, but did not show sufficient harm to merit the injunction they sought"

...but because even if you think a valedictorian is an individual acting on their on behalf not representing the government, the farking governor most certainly does.

Yeah, but participation isn't mandatory, so he's still in the green.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
"U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller said the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued against Perry's involvement based merely on feelings of exclusion, but did not show sufficient harm to merit the injunction they sought"



Yeah, but participation isn't mandatory, so he's still in the green.

What part of "may not establish" isn't clear here?
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
He isn't Congress, and it isn't a law.

14th amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
 

tim12232

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
131
Location
Charlotte, NC
Im just gonna throw this out there for the Separation of Church and State.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts


Modern interpretation vs original meaning.

If we used modern interpretation, most of us wouldnt have guns, because were not "National Guard" or true well regulated militia. We have guns because the powers that be, looked at origin of the text, wording and meaning.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,705
Location
The Real World.
Im just gonna throw this out there for the Separation of Church and State.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts


Modern interpretation vs original meaning.

If we used modern interpretation, most of us wouldnt have guns, because were not "National Guard" or true well regulated militia. We have guns because the powers that be, looked at origin of the text, wording and meaning.

Fascist psuedo-intellectuals have to distort the meaning of words in order to promote their leftist agenda. For the moonbat fringe, their can be no higher power than the state. In their "minds" whatever freedom we would have (none) would be derived from the state.
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
606
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
These people need to go away, I am very anti-religion (all of them) but if you want to pray or have a day, hell take a week. I don't care. The fact that you want to spend you time being religious in no way hurts me.

Now what would hurt me is if you tried to force me to pray or what ever, but since that isn't happening they can go pound sand.

IMO YMWV
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...op-gov-perrys-sponsorship-texas-prayer-rally/

Judge dismissed the lawsuit brought against Gov. Perry for sponsoring a Texas Prayer Day. The suit was brought on by the Freedom From Religion organization, who sued because they felt 'excluded'.

I'm crying crocodile tears for the poor lost souls of the FFR org. "The pursuit of happiness" is one of our inalienable rights, but it extends only to the point where the actions infringe upon another's pursuit of happiness.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
Im just gonna throw this out there for the Separation of Church and State.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts


Modern interpretation vs original meaning.

If we used modern interpretation, most of us wouldnt have guns, because were not "National Guard" or true well regulated militia. We have guns because the powers that be, looked at origin of the text, wording and meaning.

That is a wholly dishonest writing. From twisting deism (nature's god) into judeochristianity, to ignoring the remainder of Jefferson's and Madison's comments upon what they intended by the first amendment. I've written pretty thoroughly on that in the other thread going on here, but to summate, not only did Jefferson speak of separation when he said this:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

but Madison also spoke of that separation:
The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.

The first shows that the Jefferson found the establishment clause to build such a wall - separating the affairs of the church from those of the state. Madison furthers this viewpoint, showing the strengthening of the various churches because their power was totally divorced from the state. It's clear that the original meaning was to establish such a separation, despite what lies Bill McCarthy writes.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
So ... I am still waiting to see when the second part of the phrase "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," comes into play ... just because you are an elected official, this part does NOT pertain to you? When you are elected, you lose the right to free exercise of your religious views?
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
So ... I am still waiting to see when the second part of the phrase "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," comes into play ... just because you are an elected official, this part does NOT pertain to you? When you are elected, you lose the right to free exercise of your religious views?

From the position of a government employee, acting in your official capacity. Nothing prohibits you acting in a private capacity, provided you do not use government resources to spread your religious views.
 

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
451
Location
Knob Noster, MO
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

M'kay

1) He isn't the federal government, nor is he in his own personage the 'state'. 2) He didn't pass a law. 3) He's not forcing anyone to do anything. 4.)He's not taxing anyone, nor is he offering any incentive to take part in the festivities. 5) Presidents from both sides have participated in 'National Prayer Days' . The governor just took that idea and applied it to his state instead of the nation.

And the separation of church and state is just that. The church doesn't run the state, and the state doesn't run the church. We will never have a mandatory religion in this country, or a national church (like the Church of England). And nobody is allowed to tell you that you can't do what you want where religion is concerned. Dispite some people's best efforts, it remains freedom OF religion, there is no such thing as freedom FROM religion.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
That is a wholly dishonest writing. From twisting deism (nature's god) into judeochristianity...

To be clear, only three of our Founding Fathers were Deists. The rest adhered to various forms of Protestant faiths. There were a couple of atheists in there, as well.

The first shows that the Jefferson found the establishment clause to build such a wall - separating the affairs of the church from those of the state. Madison furthers this viewpoint, showing the strengthening of the various churches because their power was totally divorced from the state. It's clear that the original meaning was to establish such a separation, despite what lies Bill McCarthy writes.

Jefferson's efforts were strictly to assuage the fears of the Danbury Baptist Church. They were concerned the federal government would begin dictating how churches should govern themselves. In fact, Jefferson had no problem allowing federal resources to be used in support of religious efforts. He routinely opened the doors to the Treasury building for worship services as there was a lack of church space in the rapidly growing population of Washington at the time. Source: The Library of Congress.
 
Top