Quote:
|
Originally Posted by matthew330
surely your referring to the creators of patriotboy.blogspot.com.
"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."
Celebrating a holiday in school, removing the word "God" from the pledge of allegience, having the 10 commmandments in front of a courthouse and the relatively new phenomena of removing this and all other religious references on public property - including a cross displayed at a public memorial, etc etc. None of this violates the constituational ammendment cited above. Where is the constitutional law?
|
How about Everson vs. Board of Education (1947) or Engel vs. Vitale (1962). You can also look at the Tripoli Treaty of 1792 where the Founding Fathers themselves explicitly stated that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The 10 Commandments on the courthouse lawn is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment, which applies to both the states and the Federal governments.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by matthew330
The reaction to the above references to religion is not motivated by concern for the possibility of a situation described in the article of the OP. None of the above violates the constituational ammendment cited, and the original article can't be used to justify efforts like this. If anything it's a effort to establish the relgion of liberalism (props to Ann Coulter - God i love that girl), and supress all others.
Talk about the playing the politics of fear..... Kutulu certainly seems very afraid, and he's obviously not the only one.
|
By the way, the rest of you post is a red herring, and your second post is flat out offensive. If you'd like to discuss the topic rationally without resorting to personal attacks, have at it, but otherwise you're just being an asshole. If I read your post correctly, you're all for further harrassment of the plaintiffs in this case, and you seem to have dismissed their claims as absolutely groundless without knowing any of the facts. Obviously the suit is simply their version of the facts, but that doesn't mean that it's not true. After all, the original suit of the Brown v. Board of Ed. proved to be substantially true and the court ruled because of those facts. Having been to Southern Delaware fairly recently, I don't have any problem imagining that the allegations could be true.