Atheists Holy Day

[Ion01 2]

Quote

My point is that not even all Christians believe the same things you do. Since different denominations and sects believe different things. Extrapolate that to the discussion about other faiths, atheists and non-theists, and I keep coming back to the argument that the separation of Church and State was a really, really, cool idea.

I totally get your point and agree that not everyone believes the same and should not be forced to however seperation of church and state is not found in the constitution or amendments. What is found in the first amendments is not even close to seperation of church and state.
There is no real reason to argue whether it is better or not to have seperation of church and state, and that would be a whole different discussion anyway, because its not in the first or any other amendment. In fact the idea that the government can't favor one, whether you think thats a bad idea or not, is not actually there either. What is there is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[Ion01 2]

Quote

>Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion......

Incorrect. The applicable text is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

That means that Congress is prohibited from passing laws that pertain to a particular type/sect of religion. It's one of the clearer amendments, actually.

I actually already explained that I didnt put it in quotations for that reason and that does not change the point made in my post or the definitions and application of those definitions of the two words.
Also, since we are talking bible here to:
Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Why(B) do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?

“So why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord!’ when you don’t do what I say?

Why do you call Me, Lord, Lord, and do not [practice] what I tell you?

Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

Are they all saying completely different things?

Either way, call me wrong but that doesn't change the definition of the words or the meaning of the first ammendment.

[Butters 0]

Quote

I totally get your point and agree that not everyone believes the same and should not be forced to however seperation of church and state is not found in the constitution or amendments. What is found in the first amendments is not even close to seperation of church and state.
There is no real reason to argue whether it is better or not to have seperation of church and state, and that would be a whole different discussion anyway, because its not in the first or any other amendment. In fact the idea that the government can't favor one, whether you think thats a bad idea or not, is not actually there either. What is there is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Do you know what the Supreme Court is? Do you know what the Supreme Court does? Do you know what the Supreme Court has decided regarding separation of church and state based on the first amendment?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

I totally get your point and agree that not everyone believes the same and should not be forced to however seperation of church and state is not found in the constitution or amendments. What is found in the first amendments is not even close to seperation of church and state.
There is no real reason to argue whether it is better or not to have seperation of church and state, and that would be a whole different discussion anyway, because its not in the first or any other amendment. In fact the idea that the government can't favor one, whether you think thats a bad idea or not, is not actually there either. What is there is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Do you know what the Supreme Court is? Do you know what the Supreme Court does? Do you know what the Supreme Court has decided regarding separation of church and state based on the first amendment?

Yes. It is a court of appeals and all because they do certain things and make certain decisions doesn't mean they are right or are carrying out thier duties they way they are supposed to.

[billvon 2,991]

>that does not change the point made in my post . . .

You have made a lot of posts. Which point is that?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I didn't re-word it to fit anything

Yes, you did. The only reason you could have had (apart from not actually knowing the amendment) for changing the wording in the way you did was to make it fit your argument.

Quote

If you look at the definitions of the words used in the first amendment and apply them you get what I said in my post...period.

No, you don't. You cannot define two words and say that all sentences containg those two words mean the same thing. That is not how the english language works.

Quote

Are people really so incapable of understanding a sentance or two that we need it interpreted for us.

Evidently you are. "Respecting the establishment of a religion" does not mean the same thing as "respecting an establishment of religion".

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Ion01 2]

Quote

>that does not change the point made in my post . . .

You have made a lot of posts. Which point is that?

Okay, here is where I didn't quote it exactly word for word....which is why I didn't put it in quotations... and makes the point I am refering to which doesn't change.

Quote

Okay, lets make this simple.
"Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an ESTABLISHMENT of religion......"

Respecting is defined as: regarding; concerning

Establishment is :
1. the act or an instance of establishing.
2. the state or fact of being established.
3. something established; a constituted order or system.

So lets look at the definition of establish:
1. to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.
2. to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.: to establish one's child in business.
3. to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.
4. to cause to be accepted or recognized: to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon.
5. to bring about permanently: to establish order.
6. to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
7. to make (a church) a national or state institution.

So how does allowing people to not work on a particular day go against the consitution by "establishing a religion"? Does it prove christianity to be true or enact it or cause it to be accepted or found it as an establishment like a university ect......
Does having the 10 commandments at a court house do any of these things? Does having a prayer to open congress do any of these things?

Its not about giving aid to one religion or another or even seperation of church and state. Its about "respecting the establishment" of a religion as defined above and nothing more no matter how one want to stretch or twist it.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Yes, you did. The only reason you could have had (apart from not actually knowing the amendment) for changing the wording in the way you did was to make it fit your argument.

No, I was tired of having to take the time to copy it and put it in quotations because I assumed everyone knew what it said and how the english language worked.

Quote

Evidently you are. "Respecting the establishment of a religion" does not mean the same thing as "respecting an establishment of religion".

Then explain what the difference is.... even if it is different use the definition of the two word I supplied in the post or look them up yourself and my point remains the same.

[Ion01 2]

How about this....I went back and change to post so that it is a direct quote and guess what.....the point and definitions are still the same.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

No, I was tired of having to take the time to copy it

Ah, so you don't actually know what it says.

Quote

Then explain what the difference is.... even if it is different use the definition of the two word I supplied in the post or look them up yourself and my point remains the same.

In the correct wording of the amendment "establishment" is not limited to meaning the government establishing a religion, it can refer to things which are establishments of religion (things which religions have established) which the government may not make laws respecting.

Like I said, it shows that you simply don't understand the english language if you think the definitions of two words are the only things that matter in the meaning of a sentence.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

How about this....I went back and change to post so that it is a direct quote and guess what.....the point and definitions are still the same.

You are woefully incorrect.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Like I said, it shows that you simply don't understand the english language if you think the definitions of two words are the only things that matter in the meaning of a sentance.

I never said that or implied that.

Quote

In the correct wording of the amendment "establishment" is not limited to meaning the government establishing a religion, it can refer to things which are establishments of religion (things which religions have established) which the government may not make laws respecting.

So tell me how the goverment has done that by letting people not work on particular dates.

Also, how does that apply to taking the ten commandments out of a courthouse or not allowing bibles or prayers in public schools and such.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

So tell me how the goverment has done that by letting people not work on particular dates.

It's a Federal law respecting an establishment of the Christian religion.

I take it this means you've abandoned your silly stance on the meaning of the amendment?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

So tell me how the goverment has done that by letting people not work on particular dates.

It's a Federal law respecting an establishment of the Christian religion.

I take it this means you've abandoned your silly stance on the meaning of the amendment?

.

Hey, no need to approach things that way. You made a good point that I had missed once you finally got around to explaining what was different. I asked and will ask for further explanation: However, if a religion chose to establish january first as some special religious day should they not allow people off for that day all of a sudden?
Also, according to your definition the amendment still can't apply to removing the ten commandments from a courthouse (because there was no law saying it had to be there) or making a law not allow pray in schools or at the opening of congress and such.

[billvon 2,991]

>So how does allowing people to not work on a particular day go against
>the consitution by "establishing a religion"?

Can Congress pass a law regarding observance of a holy day for a specific establishment of religion? See the first amendment. Congress shall make no such law.

>Does having the 10 commandments at a court house do any of these things?

Nope. If a judge wants to put them up on the wall of his courtroom, that's fine. He must, of course, make it clear that they are his personal beliefs and have nothing to do with US law. If another judge wants to put up Shari'a laws, or the Wiccan creed, they are free to do that as well.

If you pass any sort of law allowing only one religion's commandments to go up, though - now you have a problem.

[Ion01 2]

You know, in regards to holidays why is a law needed to let people off for work? I mean its company policy to let people off for work where I work...however, I could come in to work but I am going to get payed the same either way so I should probably just stay home.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Can Congress pass a law regarding observance of a holy day for a specific establishment of religion? See the first amendment. Congress shall make no such law.

However, they are not requiring the observance of the holiday just that you don't have to work.

As for the rest of your post I must agree.

[billvon 2,991]

>You know, in regards to holidays why is a law needed to let people off for work?

An excellent question! You don't need such a law, and if you abolished it, we would not have the nonsense we do now about which days to make holidays, which days people need to take off, which day is the Sabbath etc.

[billvon 2,991]

>However, they are not requiring the observance of the holiday just that you don't
>have to work.

If you had the option to work at most government positions when you liked, and take Tuesday (or Kwanzaa, or Mardi Gras) off instead, I would agree with you. However, in most government positions, you are required by law to observe Christian holy days as days off.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

>You know, in regards to holidays why is a law needed to let people off for work?

An excellent question! You don't need such a law, and if you abolished it, we would not have the nonsense we do now about which days to make holidays, which days people need to take off, which day is the Sabbath etc.

You know, this really brings us to the point of not whether or not the law is breaking the first ammendment or not but why is it even a law. I mean...whats the point when you don't have to have a law to let people off work....or maybe you do because I the goverment doesn't work like a business where the CEO at corporate can just let people go home on certain days and still get payed and tell all of the other divisions to do the same. So maybe the only way the goverment can tell its "divisions" to not work is with a law.
Your thoughts please...

[billvon 2,991]

>So maybe the only way the goverment can tell its "divisions" to not work is with a law.

How about the law says "it's up to the supervisor, and no one shall be required to work more than 40 hours a week unless blah blah blah." That way parents with kids could work 9 to 3 7 days a week (to be home when their kids are) or single people could work 4 days 9-7 and take 3 days off.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

>However, they are not requiring the observance of the holiday just that you don't
>have to work.

If you had the option to work at most government positions when you liked, and take Tuesday (or Kwanzaa, or Mardi Gras) off instead, I would agree with you. However, in most government positions, you are required by law to observe Christian holy days as days off.

But really they are just days off that coincide with a "christian" (catholic) holy day so the goverment is not making you observe any of the customs of the catholics or christians and the catholics don't require that you not work these days either so by not working you are not observing this holy day.

[Skwrl 56]

You are fighting a battle that was lost in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison: "it's exclusively the province of the judiciary to say what the law is" (when it comes to the US Constitution...)

(Although I'm only a dabbler in religion and religious history, I'm a lawyer and - very early in my career - did work on First Amendment cases, so this part I know.)

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[Butters 0]

Quote

You are fighting a battle that was lost in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison: "it's exclusively the province of the judiciary to say what the law is" (when it comes to the US Constitution...)

(Although I'm only a dabbler in religion and religious history, I'm a lawyer and - very early in my career - did work on First Amendment cases, so this part I know.)

The religious lost the battle but haven't given up on the war ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Ion01 2]

When was that law established?

This can also be used to make the point that "interpretation" of the constitution and amendments or to try to "interpret" what they were trying to say with the amendments doesn't really work in that, assuming it was make law extremely early on near the time of our "fore fathers" one could say they didn't didn't think it conflicted with the first amendment and use that to "interpret" the amendment to make it looser. If nothing else I think we can be sure politics haven't really changed.