Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by abijnk, Oct 11, 2008.
I think the article speaks for itself.
Are we surprised?
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.
This isn't about free speech, freedom to practice religion, etc. Its about Palin using taxpayer money to, basically, attend church.
There's a thing in this country called "Church/State Separation", keep the government out of the church and the church out of the government. This appeals to both theists and atheists. Using taxpayer money for church is wrong - I follow.
Ok, I just wasn't understanding you.
Does anyone know what the actual guidelines are for the blurring of church and state separation, like in this instance? Surely this kind of thing must have happened before. Obviously it's not a direct investment from the state treasury into a religious institution which is clearly forbidden, but I can see how it was a violation. I can also see how Palin could argue that she was involved with other official state business there that day, thereby sidestepping the issue.
A classic example would be a southern state. I forgot which one. Had a 10 commandments statue on the front of the capitol building..
I believe the Supreme Court ruled it was in violation of the separation of church and state.
something to that affect.
Ah, the Roy Moore saga in Alabama.
He's a real piece of work.
The key word is Congress. She is not a member of Congress, nor is she making any laws concerning religion. I doubt that she is the only member of government that travels to churches, religious assemblies, etc. to give speeches and the taxpayers are footing the bill.
Personally, I don't think that displaying the 10 commandments is such a horrible thing. However, when the courts said otherwise, he should have removed them.
If Obama was even half as arrogant and presumptuous as Roy Moore, the GOP would have a valid complaint about the Obamessiah...
The First Amendment is incorporated onto the states via the 14th Amendment and more than a century of legal work is built on this.
For more about how incorporation got started, see Lochner v New York (1905). For more about the First Amendment specifically, see Everson v. Board of Education (1947).
You don't think it is a state sponsoring of religion?
That's what I have against it.
Definitely. He thought he would make some grand stand by resisting Federal law, but he merely found himself unemployed. I'm sure that helped his cause.
No I don't.
But again, when the courts ruled against him, Judge Moore should have taken them down. Actually, I'm glad he was removed. As a judge, Moore and the rest issue rulings that have to be obeyed. When he disobeyed a ruling in my opinion it rendered him unable to be an effective judge.