Constitution of the United States

[Moviefan2k4]

Religion, I think this means one simple thing. The Federal Government cant START or publically support one religion, thus putting other religions as a minority...Your Comments?

Actually, the First Ammendment simply states that the Government of the United States can't make any one religion legal and binding in this country, where those who refused to participate would face judicial punishment. To do so would qualify as an establishment, which the Constitution adamantly disallows.

However, by the U.S. Constitution's standards, the Government is perfectly free to support or defend any religion it so chooses. It is also free to allow religious principles to guide its actions and decisions. These things do not equal an establishment as defined in the Constitution, because there is no direct action taken by said Government to make that religion binding, and thus punishable in court.

If legal actions were taken to turn any faith into a judicial tentpole (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, whatever), then the so-called "Establishment Clause" would be violated. But so long as no direct action is taken concerning the court to make a faith punishable or binding, the Government is 100% free and clear to support and/or defend it.

 

[Tally Man]

Actually, the First Ammendment simply states that the Government of the United States can't make any one religion legal and binding in this country, where those who refused to participate would face judicial punishment. To do so would qualify as an establishment, which the Constitution adamantly disallows.

However, by the U.S. Constitution's standards, the Government is perfectly free to support or defend any religion it so chooses. It is also free to allow religious principles to guide its actions and decisions. These things do not equal an establishment as defined in the Constitution, because there is no direct action taken by said Government to make that religion binding, and thus punishable in court.

If legal actions were taken to turn any faith into a judicial tentpole (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, whatever), then the so-called "Establishment Clause" would be violated. But so long as no direct action is taken concerning the court to make a faith punishable or binding, the Government is 100% free and clear to support and/or defend it.

Here's a little quote from Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black from Everson v. Board of Education. Notice how Black's statement focuses on the fact that while the United States Government can't force people to profess a certain religion or stop them from attending a church it cannot also support one religion over another. The establishment clause does not simply prevent the government from establishing a religion.

Justice Hugo Black held,

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."​

​

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Mr. Black's remarks are not supported by the actual text of the Constitution. They're his views, nothing more.

 

[wiegeabo]

Mr. Black's remarks are not supported by the actual text of the Constitution. They're his views, nothing more.

If government supports any one religion, then it violates the free exercise of other religions because they can't get the support of the government. Even just displaying the tenets of one religion gives that faith more exposure (and therefore more support) than the others. And being equal by displaying all religious tenets doesn't work because, not only is it not feasible, it violates the freedoms of non-religious people.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Not true, we still need security, we still need firearms. We as a people reserve the right to abolish and replace our government if it were to become tyranical.

Hahaha,ab-surd.

That will never be possible ever again.
In the days of the American Revolution, there was a technology plateau.
A bunch of ragtag guerrilla fighters had access to the exact same weaponry as the world's greatest empire...guns, cannons, ships...

It wouldn't matter if every single citizen joined their state's "militia", and they organized to overthrow the gov't.
The U.S. government would wipe them out effortlessly....with all the jets, helicopters, stealth bombers, all the way up to nuclear weapons.

Please name, for me, the last militia dude who was stockpiling weapons with the other members of his movement, who got into a conflict with the government, and LIVED.

In the interest of security, and due to stupidity and laziness, the American people handed any power over government they may have had right over long ago.


Could you, lol, share with us a likely scenario, where the government becomes tyrannical, and the citizens rise up and use their weapons to overthrow THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT??

Hahahaha, what a fantasy.
They have even tested soldiers to make sure that they would still obey orders to kill if it were done to American Citizens.
It's a contingency for which they are prepared.


Too late.
Game over.
They won.
You're completely at their mercy, so you'd better pray they remain content with going overseas to kill 100's of thousands of innocent people.

 

[Tally Man]

Mr. Black's remarks are not supported by the actual text of the Constitution. They're his views, nothing more.

Mr. Blacks remarks are supported by views of Jefferson as well as Madison. Not only that but he is a Supreme Court Justice. And they are the absolute authority on matters regarding the constitution. So Mr. Black's ruling is far more credible than your simplistic view of the establishment clause ever will be.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Mr. Blacks remarks are supported by views of Jefferson as well as Madison. Not only that but he is a Supreme Court Justice. And they are the absolute authority on matters regarding the constitution. So Mr. Black's ruling is far more credible than your simplistic view of the establishment clause ever will be.

I'm simply interpreting rationally what the text of the document actually says, as opposed to what people rather it said. The Founding Fathers worded each phrase of the Constitution a certain way, to minimize the tendency for misunderstanding it. Like it or not, the Establishment Clause addresses the Government's lack of a right to use any given religion as a judicial tentpole, that's it. The Ammendment was not written for people to try and say "the Government can't be influenced by religion". To adopt such a policy would be both reckless and foolish.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'm simply interpreting rationally what the text of the document actually says, as opposed to what people rather it said. The Founding Fathers worded each phrase of the Constitution a certain way, to minimize the tendency for misunderstanding it.

Weird, they were smarter than God when he wrote the Bible.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

If government supports any one religion, then it violates the free exercise of other religions because they can't get the support of the government. Even just displaying the tenets of one religion gives that faith more exposure (and therefore more support) than the others. And being equal by displaying all religious tenets doesn't work because, not only is it not feasible, it violates the freedoms of non-religious people.

As I've already noted, the Constitution makes it 100% clear that the U.S. Governemnt is free to support or endorse any religion or faith it chooses to, so long as that faith is not declared binding by the Government, and thus punishable in court. As for other religions getting more or less general exposure, so what? There have been times in history where Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and even atheism have all been supported in a public forum, one form or another. To say that such things squash every faith when another gets the spotlight brings us into an entirely different discussion: sincerity vs. truth. But that debate is not the subject of this thread, and so I won't get into it here.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Weird, they were smarter than God when he wrote the Bible.

Not at all; they simply realized that this Constitution was being drafted to serve the needs of United States citizens. Biblical Scripture, on the other hand, was intended for the entire human race, not just a specific group.

 

[Tally Man]

As I've already noted, the Constitution makes it 100% clear that the U.S. Governemnt is free to support or endorse any religion or faith it chooses to, so long as that faith is not declared binding by the Government, and thus punishable in court. As for other religions getting more or less general exposure, so what? There have been times in history where Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and even atheism have all been supported in a public forum, one form or another. To say that such things squash every faith when another gets the spotlight brings us into an entirely different discussion: sincerity vs. truth. But that debate is not the subject of this thread, and so I won't get into it here.

I'm simply interpreting rationally what the text of the document actually says, as opposed to what people rather it said. The Founding Fathers worded each phrase of the Constitution a certain way, to minimize the tendency for misunderstanding it. Like it or not, the Establishment Clause addresses the Government's lack of a right to use any given religion as a judicial tentpole, that's it. The Ammendment was not written for people to try and say "the Government can't be influenced by religion". To adopt such a policy would be both reckless and foolish.

And I've already noted that the Supreme Court has come down on the opposite side of what you've interpreted the Constitution to mean. As far as the hierarchy of views go on the interpretation of the Constitution goes the Supreme Court view is more valid than yours. The U.S. Government is not free to support or endorse any religion or faith it chooses through taxpayer money. It cannot force prayer in areas such as schools. And how insulting is it to suggest that as long as its not an officially declared religion that the government can promote one religion and not be establishing it. If I were to implement government programs taking your tax money and giving it to Mosques, implemented Islamic Courts and etc, but didn't say Islam was the official religion of the U.S. you'd be calling BS just as fast as the rest of us would.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I didn't mention any finanacial donations to various religions, or anything of that nature. Since when does support of anything (religion or otherwise) always equal a monetary contribution? I don't recall even mentioning anything in that arena of discussion.

 

[Tally Man]

I didn't mention any finanacial donations to various religions, or anything of that nature. Since when does support of anything (religion or otherwise) always equal a monetary contribution? I don't recall even mentioning anything in that arena of discussion.

You didn't mention it but I did as one of the many things the U.S. government cannot do because of the establishment clause. To say that the establishment clause only prevents the government from establishing an official religion is a simplistic view which ignores the views of the founding fathers and the context behind the constitution.

 

[Malice]

I wanted to bring this back into view...

 

[SuBe]

Wow, almost a year later.

 

[Malice]

yup

 

[Kelly]

lol, I sometimes miss Moviefan....

 

[Obi-Ron]

Just curious...does anyone know if Capitalism is mentioned in the Constitution? Everyone keeps telling me "We're a capitalist country," I was wondering if that's actually in our charter somewhere.