We read:
"Earlier this month, The Blaze told you about a drama unfolding between the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), an atheist and freethinking group based in Wisconsin, and a local government in North Carolina. The non-believing group is demanding that officials remove a Ten Commandments plaque that is hanging in the Newland Town Hall.
So far, though, the town has not complied with the demand and is carefully reviewing the group’s request. Currently, town officials are relying upon legal advice as they weigh the pros and cons associated with the plaque’s presence in the public building.
Gaylor argues that McCreary County vs. ACLU, a 2005 Supreme Court case, already settled this matter in the atheists’ favor. “The government has no business telling you what god to worship, how many gods to worship or whether to worship any god at all,” she continued
Hundley, though, started getting into specifics. He asked Gaylor how she would feel if a religious item were present inside of a public employee’s office rather than in a highly-visible area. In this case, the atheist leader said she may still be opposed.
Of course, she ended by claiming that the founding fathers would have never wanted such displays. “We have no Ten Commandments in our foundational documents, in our Constitution,” she said. “Our founders did not want religion and government to mix.”
Source
I guess she hasn't read the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Who was that "Creator" guy? Or was the Declaration not a political document?
18 comments:
Posting the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment clause because Jews, Catholics, and Protestants number the commandments differently (and Jews have a completely different First Commandment than everyone else). Selecting which of these sectarian versions to support is by defintion an establishment of religion.
OFF TOPIC : But UNBELIEVABLE
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/muslim-admits-attacking-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE
Athiest dressed up as Mohammed, a muslim assaulted him, and he brought charges, and the Muslim Judge dismissed the case and lectured the guy who was assaulted about offending muslims.
“We have no Ten Commandments in our foundational documents, in our Constitution,..”
Nor do we have a "seperation of church and state", nor do we have a "right to privacy", but that doesn't stop those on the Left who see the Constitution as a "living document", meaning, something they can tweek and manipulate at will.
The United States Constitution ABSOLUTELY refers Jesus Christ:
"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."
And who do you think "Lord" refers to?
"And who do you think "Lord" refers to?"
Lord Voldemort, of course.
filthy yankee needs to mind her own stupid assinine buisness. I guess she has never been to the supreme court building in washington dc. Numerous religious carvings all over it.
anon 2:10 am get a life or go play in traffic, adults are talking here.
“Congress shall make no law establishing a religion… ”
The convoluted interpretation is that any entity that accepts any funds from a government source is legislating religion by any show of piety or respect. Religion places reliance on something other than government, which the Statists cannot tolerate. They will stop at nothing to establish an official religion of atheism and banish all that stands in the way of the State from the public square.
These knuckleheads should thank God that the founding fathers founded our nation on principles which originated from belief in God. Where do they think equality of men and the inherent value of human life came from. Not from atheism, visit the former Soviet union and China or any communist country and see what has been wrought by a belief system that equates humans with animals.
@7:18 Are you some sort of a retard or something? Go back to you parents' basement.
There is absolutly nothing in the constituion about the separation of church and state
Jason, posting them does nothing. Enforcing them, forcing people to comply with them and in a specific form does.
And that's not happening.
Why not have an extract from the US' own foundational texts instead of a version of an ancient Hebrew text, regardless of the latter being religious in nature.
I have a much simpler solution. Put a $500. bounty on the head of every atheist. This would not only rid our society of this vermin, but it would do wonders for all those who are out of work, and also help the economy because of all the ammo that would be sold. Of course, if you are against guns, you can use a torch or a strong rope, thereby helping the environment. It's a win, win!
3:23 AM You obviously live in Iran or the tribal areas of Afghanistan.
The presence of established language in a very old document does not verify the existance of your god or your jesus idol. The Constitution seems like a Persian bazaar, something for everybody. And the Founding Fathers' apparent devotion to god may come as a surprise to many. I guess history is a lot like a Persian bazaar too.
(hey JJ I didn't know we could swear so much around here, especially if the topic is religion. Cool!. Just wait till we move onto the Rudd/Gillard spill, that should turn the air blue)
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (which explains the dating convention), the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
While some also draw meaning from the references to "Nature's God" and "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence (references that could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is largely baseless. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence (that required winning a war), nor did it found a government, nor did it even create any law, and it certainly did not say or do anything that somehow dictated the meaning of a Constitution adopted twelve years later. The colonists issued the Declaration not to do any of that, but rather to politically explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies. Nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies were free to choose whether to form a collective government at all and, if so, whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take its words as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose--or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished--or, as they ultimately chose, a government founded on the power of the people (not a deity) and separated from religion.
Well said, Doug.
Post a Comment