(Untitled)

Jan 14, 2005 08:37

This is not what separation of church and state was meant to be ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 16

a_fair_desire January 14 2005, 14:24:28 UTC
so if there can't be a prayer at the inauguration, i'm gonna scream. people just suck.

of course they would be prohibiting the exercise of our freedom of religion. but does that matter to them? no. as long as its christianity, its prohobited.

jerks. i hate people.

Reply

ibjhb January 14 2005, 15:18:09 UTC
It really is getting ridiculous. We should be allowed to practice however we want. This is really getting to be extreme...

Reply

ibjhb January 27 2005, 05:54:03 UTC
BTW: They prayed a couple different times at the inauguration...

Reply


thejoythatkills January 14 2005, 15:11:17 UTC
amen brotha. preach it : )

Reply

ibjhb January 14 2005, 15:18:16 UTC
:)

Reply


youinmyheart January 14 2005, 16:01:41 UTC
i totally agree with you!

Reply

ibjhb January 14 2005, 18:34:35 UTC
:)

Reply


revealing January 14 2005, 17:17:49 UTC
one of the main purposes of the establishment clause was to protect from declaring and financially supporting a natl. religion like so many other countries had at the time ( ... )

Reply

ibjhb January 14 2005, 18:34:22 UTC
What does it matter if something is offensive or not?

Where does it say that if something is offensive we (or the govt) can't do it?

Reply

revealing January 14 2005, 18:37:42 UTC
point taken.

What if my religion called for me to burn down houses, would that mean that that would be protected by the First Amendment?

Personally, I agree with the Supreme Court decisions regarding the Ten Commandments and I find it personally offensive the way our particular president plays on religion. The government has a duty to the country to remain neutral as to not alienate a large portion of the country.

Reply

ibjhb January 14 2005, 21:40:16 UTC
The difference of putting the Ten Commandments and burning down houses is you are infringing on someone else's rights when you burn down the house. This is not true by displaying the Ten Commandments.

Take the "under God" phrase in the pledge. The courts should require the removal of that phrase any more than they should force someone to say it.

As long as people aren't FORCED to do something or it infringes on their rights, it should be allowed. Displaying the Ten Commandments on the wall doesn't force anybody to do anything and it doesn't infringe on anybody's rights...

Reply


fusion260 January 27 2005, 05:35:38 UTC
I've said this over and over myself. I hate it when you have people sitting and being paid by tax dollars to "interpret" a simple one-sentance phrase that doesn't mention the word "separation" at all.

That just pisses me off.

Reply

ibjhb January 27 2005, 05:54:18 UTC
I hear ya

Reply


Leave a comment

Up