Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Judge Dismisses case over National Prayer Day

  1. #1
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    451

    Judge Dismisses case over National Prayer Day

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-prayer-rally/

    Judge dismissed the lawsuit brought against Gov. Perry for sponsoring a Texas Prayer Day. The suit was brought on by the Freedom From Religion organization, who sued because they felt 'excluded'.
    God is the one driving this stagecoach, I'm just riding shotgun.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by frommycolddeadhands View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-prayer-rally/

    Judge dismissed the lawsuit brought against Gov. Perry for sponsoring a Texas Prayer Day. The suit was brought on by the Freedom From Religion organization, who sued because they felt 'excluded'.
    You'd think choosing too exclude yourself would be good enough. Commies are never happy.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by frommycolddeadhands View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-prayer-rally/

    Judge dismissed the lawsuit brought against Gov. Perry for sponsoring a Texas Prayer Day. The suit was brought on by the Freedom From Religion organization, who sued because they felt 'excluded'.
    A terrible standard, and they did not sue because they felt excluded, but because even if you think a valedictorian is an individual acting on their on behalf not representing the government, the farking governor most certainly does.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  4. #4
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    A terrible standard, and they did not sue because they felt excluded...
    "U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller said the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued against Perry's involvement based merely on feelings of exclusion, but did not show sufficient harm to merit the injunction they sought"

    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    ...but because even if you think a valedictorian is an individual acting on their on behalf not representing the government, the farking governor most certainly does.
    Yeah, but participation isn't mandatory, so he's still in the green.
    God is the one driving this stagecoach, I'm just riding shotgun.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by frommycolddeadhands View Post
    "U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller said the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued against Perry's involvement based merely on feelings of exclusion, but did not show sufficient harm to merit the injunction they sought"



    Yeah, but participation isn't mandatory, so he's still in the green.
    What part of "may not establish" isn't clear here?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  6. #6
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    What part of "may not establish" isn't clear here?
    He isn't Congress, and it isn't a law.
    God is the one driving this stagecoach, I'm just riding shotgun.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by frommycolddeadhands View Post
    He isn't Congress, and it isn't a law.
    14th amendment
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson...d_of_Education
    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."
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131
    Im just gonna throw this out there for the Separation of Church and State.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts


    Modern interpretation vs original meaning.

    If we used modern interpretation, most of us wouldnt have guns, because were not "National Guard" or true well regulated militia. We have guns because the powers that be, looked at origin of the text, wording and meaning.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by tim12232 View Post
    Im just gonna throw this out there for the Separation of Church and State.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts


    Modern interpretation vs original meaning.

    If we used modern interpretation, most of us wouldnt have guns, because were not "National Guard" or true well regulated militia. We have guns because the powers that be, looked at origin of the text, wording and meaning.
    Fascist psuedo-intellectuals have to distort the meaning of words in order to promote their leftist agenda. For the moonbat fringe, their can be no higher power than the state. In their "minds" whatever freedom we would have (none) would be derived from the state.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  10. #10
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    These people need to go away, I am very anti-religion (all of them) but if you want to pray or have a day, hell take a week. I don't care. The fact that you want to spend you time being religious in no way hurts me.

    Now what would hurt me is if you tried to force me to pray or what ever, but since that isn't happening they can go pound sand.

    IMO YMWV
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by frommycolddeadhands View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-prayer-rally/

    Judge dismissed the lawsuit brought against Gov. Perry for sponsoring a Texas Prayer Day. The suit was brought on by the Freedom From Religion organization, who sued because they felt 'excluded'.
    I'm crying crocodile tears for the poor lost souls of the FFR org. "The pursuit of happiness" is one of our inalienable rights, but it extends only to the point where the actions infringe upon another's pursuit of happiness.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by tim12232 View Post
    Im just gonna throw this out there for the Separation of Church and State.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts


    Modern interpretation vs original meaning.

    If we used modern interpretation, most of us wouldnt have guns, because were not "National Guard" or true well regulated militia. We have guns because the powers that be, looked at origin of the text, wording and meaning.
    That is a wholly dishonest writing. From twisting deism (nature's god) into judeochristianity, to ignoring the remainder of Jefferson's and Madison's comments upon what they intended by the first amendment. I've written pretty thoroughly on that in the other thread going on here, but to summate, not only did Jefferson speak of separation when he said this:
    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
    but Madison also spoke of that separation:
    The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.
    The first shows that the Jefferson found the establishment clause to build such a wall - separating the affairs of the church from those of the state. Madison furthers this viewpoint, showing the strengthening of the various churches because their power was totally divorced from the state. It's clear that the original meaning was to establish such a separation, despite what lies Bill McCarthy writes.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  13. #13
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    So ... I am still waiting to see when the second part of the phrase "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," comes into play ... just because you are an elected official, this part does NOT pertain to you? When you are elected, you lose the right to free exercise of your religious views?
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    So ... I am still waiting to see when the second part of the phrase "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," comes into play ... just because you are an elected official, this part does NOT pertain to you? When you are elected, you lose the right to free exercise of your religious views?
    From the position of a government employee, acting in your official capacity. Nothing prohibits you acting in a private capacity, provided you do not use government resources to spread your religious views.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  15. #15
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    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."
    M'kay

    1) He isn't the federal government, nor is he in his own personage the 'state'. 2) He didn't pass a law. 3) He's not forcing anyone to do anything. 4.)He's not taxing anyone, nor is he offering any incentive to take part in the festivities. 5) Presidents from both sides have participated in 'National Prayer Days' . The governor just took that idea and applied it to his state instead of the nation.

    And the separation of church and state is just that. The church doesn't run the state, and the state doesn't run the church. We will never have a mandatory religion in this country, or a national church (like the Church of England). And nobody is allowed to tell you that you can't do what you want where religion is concerned. Dispite some people's best efforts, it remains freedom OF religion, there is no such thing as freedom FROM religion.
    God is the one driving this stagecoach, I'm just riding shotgun.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    That is a wholly dishonest writing. From twisting deism (nature's god) into judeochristianity...
    To be clear, only three of our Founding Fathers were Deists. The rest adhered to various forms of Protestant faiths. There were a couple of atheists in there, as well.

    The first shows that the Jefferson found the establishment clause to build such a wall - separating the affairs of the church from those of the state. Madison furthers this viewpoint, showing the strengthening of the various churches because their power was totally divorced from the state. It's clear that the original meaning was to establish such a separation, despite what lies Bill McCarthy writes.
    Jefferson's efforts were strictly to assuage the fears of the Danbury Baptist Church. They were concerned the federal government would begin dictating how churches should govern themselves. In fact, Jefferson had no problem allowing federal resources to be used in support of religious efforts. He routinely opened the doors to the Treasury building for worship services as there was a lack of church space in the rapidly growing population of Washington at the time. Source: The Library of Congress.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •