Main > Everything Else
This is more than a little scary
fredster:
--- Quote ---It's an interpretation of the constitution
--- End quote ---
Where is it in the Consitution? Show me.
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on February 03, 2005, 12:31:08 pm ---
Somewhere you read a post and mistook it for mine. It's ok. I can forgive you. :angel:
--- End quote ---
No, I read your post just fine. You seem to be suggesting that using a broad, inclusive term such as "Winter Break" somehow invalidates a specific religious celebration (ie: Christmas, etc). My question to you (with copious amounts of sarcasm) was, what would you rather have it called? Anything, in my mind, that must specifically referrence the Christian theology is just a selfish cry for validation, which would led one to believe other belief structures are seen to be invalid.
Maybe I am tired....debating religion does tend to make me sleepy.
mrC
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: fredster on February 04, 2005, 08:56:03 am ---Where is it in the Consitution? Show me.
--- End quote ---
For a rebuttle to that tired old argument, see here: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg1.htm
My personal favorite quote: "To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution."
mrC
shmokes:
--- Quote from: fredster on February 03, 2005, 01:07:32 pm ---http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
I have gone over this document several times, I really don't see it.
--- End quote ---
Perhpas you should read the entire document instead of just the portion you linked to:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
fredster:
So you prove my Point. That's Mr.C. Thanks for the non answer Shmokes!
"The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles"
It's not there either. So It's assumed. It's interpreted. (I'm not for it either), but with the proper backing, this "interpretation" can be changed with a stroke of the pen from the Supreme Court.
Where is it exactly? - Is this supposed to tell me that (Article 1) ?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
So that can be interpreted as having stained glass windows up, but not making people bow to them. Tell me that people can't run with that in either direction.
People can say that because these religious icons are removed they are somehow injured and they can no longer practice the free exercise thereof;