Christ Centered Gamer

Lazarus · **Joined:** Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:00 pm **Posts:** 23351

wferwfer wrote:

Putting the word "God" on government stuff is referencing God. It is religious. It doesn't matter if they're not specific about which religion, its still religious. Thats what the supreme court said anyway when they banned school organized prayer in public schools. They don't literally have to make a law regarding an establishment of religion for it to violate the clause. You don't take the constitution word by word literally, every part of it has been interpreted to include more than what is spelled out.

This is wrong.

And not only am I right and you wrong, I'm rubber and you're glue! And everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!

ChickenSoup · **Posted:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:56 pm

wferwfer wrote:

Sure it does. The government favoring or promoting in any way religion over religion, religion over irreligion, or irreligion over religion is a clear violation of the establishment clause and separation of church and state. For the sake of religious freedom the government is supposed to be neutral with regard to any kind of religion. Of course that doesn't stop people. We make the president, the highest and most powerful official in the country, swear on a bible. The government makes the president swear on a religious document. And sworn in by a religious official too. If thats not establishment of religion I don't know what is. Whats gonna happen when an openly non-christian becomes president?

no, it would violate the Constitution--which says that Congress cannot pass a law respecting an establishment of religion--IF congress made a law respecting establishment of religion. Until you can show me that Congress did so, it's not affected by the first amendment.

wferwfer · **Joined:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:07 pm **Posts:** 1707

Thats nice soup, refer to my last post, not the old one. I talk about this.

ChickenSoup · **Posted:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:51 pm

wferwfer wrote:

Barack claims to be a christian, but even if he's not he shouldn't be swearing on a bible. That undeniably is an establishment of religion.

Putting the word "God" on government stuff is referencing God. It is religious. It doesn't matter if they're not specific about which religion, its still religious. Thats what the supreme court said anyway when they banned school organized prayer in public schools. They don't literally have to make a law regarding an establishment of religion for it to violate the clause. You don't take the constitution word by word literally, every part of it has been interpreted to include more than what is spelled out.

For example the constitution only says we have freedom of speech and the press. That doesn't mean its limited to literally what comes out of your mouth. What about symbolic speech? (As in a shirt protesting the war in Iraq or something, not actual talking) Issues such as these have arisen in supreme court cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and Texas v. Johnson (1989). It has reasonably been interpreted as freedom of expression. Or the fourth amendment which protects the invasion of our privacy but doesn't explicitly say that beyond preventing unreasonably search and seizure by the government. Similarly separation of church and state comes from the establishment clause in order to keep the government impartial. Putting God on legal tender violates this. I know the constitution my friend.

It's when we start not taking the Constitution literally that things get messed around with.

"Welllll it doesn't SAY ___, buuuut... It basically means that. So, yeah."

wferwfer · **Joined:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:07 pm **Posts:** 1707

well that is how it works. Nothing I said was out of line with constitutional law though. You have to interpret the constitution, otherwise we wouldn't have half the rights we do. Especially when it comes to things like freedom of speech. Its not really that bad. The supreme court doesn't really mess around with it much.

Shas_el_Tyros · **Posted:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:09 pm

Quote:

It's when we start not taking the Constitution literally that things get messed around with.

"Welllll it doesn't SAY ___, buuuut... It basically means that. So, yeah."

Our Constitution is brilliant because of how flexible it is. Literalism doesn't work, and I don't believe that any President has read into it completely literally since Jefferson (you can thank him and his non-literalism for the Louisiana Purchase... they thought he was ripping the document to shreads with that, but it ended up being one of the smartest foriegn policy decisions our country has ever done).

Following the Constitution faithfully and literally sounds good in a forum post, but the order of the day is realpolitik, and it always has been.

wferwfer · **Joined:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:07 pm **Posts:** 1707

you can still follow it faithfully without being literal about it.

Saker · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:47 am

But doesn't it worry you guys that our nation's founding document can be interpreted by whoever is in power? If it were less subjective, more power would be in the hands of the people, not the President or the Supreme Court.

Hescominsoon · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:18 am

Saker wrote:

But doesn't it worry you guys that our nation's founding document can be interpreted by whoever is in power? If it were less subjective, more power would be in the hands of the people, not the President or the Supreme Court.

The Constitution is a literal document not a figurative or allegorical one. Instead of interpreting it.. just read the words literally and things work as intended. Only a literal reading of the constitution produces the intended results of limited government and the power of the government being at the citizen level.

Orodrist · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:45 am

Hescominsoon wrote:

Saker wrote:

But doesn't it worry you guys that our nation's founding document can be interpreted by whoever is in power? If it were less subjective, more power would be in the hands of the people, not the President or the Supreme Court.

The Constitution is a literal document not a figurative or allegorical one. Instead of interpreting it.. just read the words literally and things work as intended. Only a literal reading of the constitution produces the intended results of limited government and the power of the government being at the citizen level.

No, a literal translation of the Constitution just kills people.

Lazarus · **Joined:** Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:00 pm **Posts:** 23351

Oro, explain, or don't post.

wferwfer · **Joined:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:07 pm **Posts:** 1707

Hey I'm not promoting interpreting the constitution loosely When it comes to constitutional law and the supreme court most things are pretty clear cut. People do look at it strictly. The thing is, no matter how strictly you try to look at anything it still has to be interpreted. Human experience is subjective. You could spend hours arguing over the true meaning and intent of a single sentence. Thats what the supreme court is for.

For example the first amendment. It says we have freedom of speech and of the press. Thats a pretty broad statement. What limitations are there on these rights? Are rights limited only to what is explicitly stated? What about other forms of expression that are necessary to a free society but not verbal? Surely the founders meant to protect free thinking and expression in general, not just literally what's coming out of your mouth.

Its not a simple question to answer, and these issues come up. Like in the supreme court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In 1969 several teenagers decided to peacefully wear arm bands protesting the Vietnam War to school. School officials decided to force the kids to remove the bands and punished them. The legal case that resulted went all the way to the top. Fortunately most of the justices concluded based on their interpretation of the meaning of the constitution that rights for minors did not stop at the school gates and that symbolic speech is indeed protected by the first amendment, even though it was not explicitly mentioned. This was not a clear cut issues over constitutional law.

Harold Ramis · **Joined:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm **Posts:** 12

Haven't read the entire thread, but... I find it an ironic statement.

Bruce_Campbell · **Joined:** Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:00 pm **Posts:** 2623

Harold Ramis wrote:

Haven't read the entire thread, but... I find it an ironic statement.

IT'S LIKE RAYEEEEYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN ON YER WEDDING DAY...

Hescominsoon · **Posted:** Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:53 pm

Orodrist wrote:

Hescominsoon wrote:

Saker wrote:

But doesn't it worry you guys that our nation's founding document can be interpreted by whoever is in power? If it were less subjective, more power would be in the hands of the people, not the President or the Supreme Court.

The Constitution is a literal document not a figurative or allegorical one. Instead of interpreting it.. just read the words literally and things work as intended. Only a literal reading of the constitution produces the intended results of limited government and the power of the government being at the citizen level.

No, a literal translation of the Constitution just kills people.

oh really? How so? Please enlighten us.

Christ Centered Gamer

Should In God We Trust be removed from currency?

Who is online