Yes, it's all a neolib fantasy.

Time to get rid of the highways. And anti-child-porn-legislation. And any of these other newfangled neo-liberal shackles.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.
O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.
Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.
It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.
Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.

O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.

Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.

It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.

Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

Good point, Sagemind. An intelligent Christian conservative might argue that the establishment clause has been historically misinterpreted by the courts, and that it was only originally intended to prohibit the federal government from creating a new religion, as the Church of England did. . . But she didn't say any of that. She really just came off as completely clueless about what's in the Constitution.

Let's See:
"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."

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) incorporated certain select provisions. However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

To her Credit, (and I can't believe I'm saying this), it doesn't say the words "Seperation of Church and State."

Why would you think I have a grievence with you? Your assumption may be a convenient premise for your rant, but it's not true. I think you read way too much into it.

As I saw it, you were telling people to drop it, that the discussion was over. I found it ironic that you posted the first Amendment in support of that opinion, yet the first Amendment contains more than just the Establishment Clause.

JFC, it was bold-faced simply so you would understand what I was referring to, the part I felt you either hadn't gotten far enough to read, didn't understand, or chose to ignore. Your reaction, as well as your assumptions about me, speak volumes, though.

"Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed."

Strange that you chose it.

The post prior... try reading the whole thing, and the post it was replying to. I was being critical of his telling others to shut up. Basically, a similar reason to why I replied to your post. People being able to discuss and say whatever they wish without being pricks to each other (guilty, on occasion) is why this isn't YouTube. But hey, you live in the world you want to live in and view it through whatever color glasses you choose. I don't care.

And accusing peeps of P-A is just so... choggish. If I truly had a "grievence", I'd have just spit it out.

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^Fletch:
Yes, please read, more carefully this time.
Amendment I
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.

Since you're being sarcastic, the premise of this post is based on the assumption that your grievance with me is that you support this destruction of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (as I would put it; you feel however you want) and you recognize that I don't.
If you're attempting to imply in a passive-aggressive fashion that I'm somehow encroaching on your first amendment rights to discuss breaking our first amendment rights, I'm not. I recognize your right to continue debating how you can go about (in this case literally) dismantling the first amendment, but you're still placing higher priority to the freedoms that you want than the freedoms of others.
I find it especially telling how you've used bold emphasis to illustrate the portion you have deemed important because you think it represents your viewpoint while you completely ignore the standard typeface portion. Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed.
.. and in the post before this you told someone to shut up. Need I even point out the hypocrisy?

>> ^VoodooV:

Where is this overstepping that you speak of? The building is already there so there is no endorsement of religion. The building has a number of secular reasons to exist too. If the money was being used to build another cross-shaped building, i'd be against it, but that's not happening here. The money is just upkeep to fix an existing building.
If they don't fix it, then they'll have to tear it down. that costs money too. You're too obsessed with the shape of the building and not about what it's actually used for.
Again, there are much better, less dickish, ways to fight religion. This is the equivalent of nitpicking and there are much bigger fish to fry and your energy would be better spent elsewhere.


Government money spent on a symbol of religion? It violates the Establishment Clause. Nitpicking? Hardly. Allowing one group to do it sets precedence for other groups to do it, and it allows the government to passively promote one creed over another.

Now you'll say what law did they write that favored one over the other. I'll say it wasn't a law that they wrote it was the dispensation of taxpayer money to favor a religious symbol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

I don't want to be presumptuous, but I'm gonna go with, no, she does not know.
>> ^jwray:

What an ignoramus. Does she even know that the bible advocates the death penalty for disobedient children, homosexuals, people who work on the sabbath, adulterers, etc?
Does she know that God and Jesus were deliberately not mentioned in the Constitution?
Does she know that Jefferson, who wrote the declaration of independence, denied the divinity of Jesus and published his own version of the bible with all the supernatural bullshit excised from it? Does she know that Jefferson also wrote that the Bill of Rights had erected "A wall of separation between church and state?"
Does she know that Thomas Paine, who wrote the most influential propaganda pamphlet for the American side of the revolutionary war (Common Sense) also wrote The Age of Reason?
The Pledge of Allegiance and the official currency didn't even have any mention of God before McCarythyist scum got to it in the 1950s.
That, together with an official day of prayer, is equivalent to the establishment of Theism as the state religion of the United States government, which is explicitly forbidden by the first amendment.
The establishment clause precludes the US Government from promoting a particular religion or category of religions in its official capacity. People who work for the government can say whatever they want about religion on their free time, but can't use their government authority to promote monotheism.

What an ignoramus. Does she even know that the bible advocates the death penalty for disobedient children, homosexuals, people who work on the sabbath, adulterers, etc?

Does she know that God and Jesus were deliberately not mentioned in the Constitution?

Does she know that Jefferson, who wrote the declaration of independence, denied the divinity of Jesus and published his own version of the bible with all the supernatural bullshit excised from it? Does she know that Jefferson also wrote that the Bill of Rights had erected "A wall of separation between church and state?"

Does she know that Thomas Paine, who wrote the most influential propaganda pamphlet for the American side of the revolutionary war (Common Sense) also wrote The Age of Reason?

The Pledge of Allegiance and the official currency didn't even have any mention of God before McCarythyist scum got to it in the 1950s.

That, together with an official day of prayer, is equivalent to the establishment of Theism as the state religion of the United States government, which is explicitly forbidden by the first amendment.

The establishment clause precludes the US Government from promoting a particular religion or category of religions in its official capacity. People who work for the government can say whatever they want about religion on their free time, but can't use their government authority to promote monotheism.

There should have been an ammendment to the constitution similar to the establishment clause.

"The US Government shall make no law that supports nor favors one race over the other."

A government should be indifferent to race, credo, and religion. Therefore any law that subjugates a race, religion, or credo will support all other race, religions, or credo; is inherently unconstitutional.

Alas, I do not know of any ammendment or clause that states that no race shall be extolled over another.

>> ^maestro156:
It seems clear to me that it isn't a violation of the establishment clause, since the government is not establishing any religion by using this gear.


Actually think of it this way. I'm a christian with a gun and there is a Muslim in the room. I shoot him in the head... I think I've just established Christianity as the official religion in the room.

It seems clear to me that it isn't a violation of the establishment clause, since the government is not establishing any religion by using this gear. The manufacturers may be trying to promote religion, but unless there is evidence that the verses were a primary selling point for the military, then the military was merely buying "the best product" without any religious consideration.

If the verses were more prominent, for example, in full text in large font, then I could see it being a problem, since that would lend credence to the idea that the military purchaser in question intended to promote a particular religion.

Having said that, this does seem impolitic, and it would be within our rights to demand that the military either change their supplier or require the supplier to change their product. This would not be a demand based upon constitutionality, but based upon our democratic authority, by influencing the congressmen who can enforce these rules.

Its actually illegal for the DOD to of purchased them.

Religious displays on government property breaks the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution of the united states.

The clause details any actions that are impermissible by the government on the grounds of establishing or supporting any one religion over another by the state....one of which being religious displays on government property.

Case citation to prove my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassroth_v._Moore

A judge installed a monument to the 10 commandments outside his court house.
He was ordered to have it removed.
He lost his case, and refused to have it removed.
The district court stepped in, removed him from the bench, and had the statue torn down.

If someone files civil litigation, the DOD wont win.

Its time to stop reasoning with those who willingly proceed to believe in fairy tales. Simply let them live their foolish lives. Until they violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution then its time to put a stop to it.

>> ^Nithern:
Its not just Christians. Muslims could take offense to it. So can those of the Jewish faith.
Still, the billboard in a way, is a slap in the face to those of the Christian faith. Yes, Christians have dome things like this in the past. But if you do the samething as them, your no better then they are. You loose the philosophical 'high road'. But then, if they were threaten, it could mean anything from a legal issue in the courts (and the person bringing the issue has deep pockets of cash), on up to and including, physical violence.
If, as an atheist, you go, and attack a Christian service, by being obnoiously rude and LOUD. Yes, they WILL get angry and do anything from legal issues to physical violence. One would think, that if Atheist's philosophy was so good, they would have learn from other religions around them? Apparently, not.


Well, it is free speech. So, sincerely fuck that, and any one who wants to silence freedom of expression. Note that in the second sentence I am expressing an opinion. Just because it offends you doesn't mean it is not freedom of expression.

Now on to more rational discussion.

First and foremost, no one was physically attacked with this sign. Secondly any one using money to exploit the court system to seek a politically motivated lawsuit is, arguably, taking part in Vexatious Litigation. Thirdly, no one went into a gathering of the proposed religious and became unruly.

Forth, and most importantly, Atheism is not a religion. Nor has it ever claimed to be. Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3] Wikipedia

Atheism is a rational and logical system of thought that relies on fact to avoid the absurdity of religions which,in point of fact, rely only on faith.

If it were a religious billboard, as much as I detest the thought, I would be arguing that the people lodging threats against it are no better than those lodging threats here.

Favoring one over the other is not pursuant to good faith and is a slap in the face of the framers. For instance see the Establishment Clause

The constitution provides for all citizens or none at all. One group cannot be held above the others. But then again, I'm thinking of Republics not Democracies.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. -http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause