The Fight Is At Your Doorstep: Who're You Standing For?

[Godzman]

What does Bush being able to pray have to do with being able to pray before a football game?

And if you go to a football game to pray...urgh.

it doesn't matter if it is in a public place and wont disrupt the peace and cause harm it should be allowed.

Freedom of speech goes both ways.

 

[watt]

prayer at football games violates the lemon test
Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 US 602 (1971)

Upheld a Federal panel that found that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act providing for a 15% teacher salary supplement, was unconstitutional because, in practice, only Catholic School teachers would receive the funds. The Court decision established the Lemon test, which details requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. The act stipulated that "eligible teachers must teach only courses offered in the public schools, using only materials used in the public schools, and must agree not to teach courses in religion." Still, a three-judge panel found 25% of the State's elementary students attended nonpublic schools, about 95% of the these attended Roman Catholic schools, and the sole beneficiaries under the act were 250 teachers at Roman Catholic schools. From the High Court opinion: "The court found that the parochial school system was "an integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church," and held that the Act fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause." The Decision

"Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion." The Court's decision established the Lemon test, which details the requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs: *(1) The government's action must not promote a particular religion or religious view; *(2) The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and *(3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For further reading:

 

[Godzman]

I am this thread's starter and by speaking the truth, I do not believe I'm jeapordizing anything but the machinations of the wicked. "If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household?

Sociopath, you can nit pick and spin obscure turns of Constitutional law as it pleases you. Regardless, the SCOTUS, in striking down sodomy laws, has spit in the faces and upon the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who recognize homosexuality's evil nature. They've said that the alien views of a minority outweigh the rights of the majority to govern themselves.

And God may use them while they're here. Knowingly embracing sin, however, is a rejection of salvation. Deliberately doing that which offends God, particularly to the point of declaring it a lifestyle (and then causing others to stumble by spreading lies to the effect that God doesn't care), is an act of rebellion. This means no more protection from God's wrath (Hell) when they die. It doesn't matter how much good they've done while they were here.

Don't get me wrong, though: If they're trying to stop, that's not the same as knowningly, deliberately sinning. There's a great difference between a kleptomaniac who's honestly, earnestly repentent in his/her heart and someone who says "pfft - I'm just born this way" and, in effect, gives God the middle finger by declaring their conduct as somehow legitimate. Those who truly want to change will be saved. They have to trust in Him to make the change, though. It will not (and cannot) be done by/of themselves.

agreed mostly.

I was talking about those who love Christ and sincerely want to stop sinning

 

[watt]

freedom of religion comes with the responsibilities of respect and tolerance of other religions or those without

 

[Brother Christman]

That's a "lemon" of a test, alright.

 

[Godzman]

prayer at football games violates the lemon test
Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 US 602 (1971)

Upheld a Federal panel that found that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act providing for a 15% teacher salary supplement, was unconstitutional because, in practice, only Catholic School teachers would receive the funds. The Court decision established the Lemon test, which details requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. The act stipulated that "eligible teachers must teach only courses offered in the public schools, using only materials used in the public schools, and must agree not to teach courses in religion." Still, a three-judge panel found 25% of the State's elementary students attended nonpublic schools, about 95% of the these attended Roman Catholic schools, and the sole beneficiaries under the act were 250 teachers at Roman Catholic schools. From the High Court opinion: "The court found that the parochial school system was "an integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church," and held that the Act fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause." The Decision

"Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion." The Court's decision established the Lemon test, which details the requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs: *(1) The government's action must not promote a particular religion or religious view; *(2) The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and *(3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For further reading:

Who said the government had to endorse the prayer, i didn't the government as a whole doesn't endorse Bush in all he says. Why would it do that for prayer or any speech

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

No one is oppressing anyone on a message board.

The opening post is nothing but paranoid and delusional blather full of hatred and bigotry advocating that homosexuals be denied equal treatment under the law whereas Christians be given special treatment by the law to use the government to force their religion to be used as an oppressive force against a group of people.

The whole point of this bigoted nonsense is the advocacy of oppression!

 

[Godzman]

freedom of religion comes with the responsibilities of respect and tolerance of other religions or those without

it mostly involves the free exercise of your own religion.

 

[Godzman]

The opening post is nothing but paranoid and delusional blather full of hatred and bigotry advocating that homosexuals be denied equal treatment under the law whereas Christians be given special treatment by the law to use the government to force their religion to be used as an oppressive force against a group of people.

The whole point of this bigoted nonsense is the advocacy of oppression!

i think the opening post wasn't meant to be bigoted

 

[Sociopath4Jesus]

Sociopath, you can nit pick and spin obscure turns of Constitutional law as it pleases you.

You brought it up, buddy. You made the claim, now back it up with the case citation.

Regardless, the SCOTUS, in striking down sodomy laws, has spit in the faces and upon the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who recognize homosexuality's evil nature.

Funny, since the Supreme Court is comprised of Christians and Jews. Maybe they were just spitting on Muslims?

They've said that the alien views of a minority outweigh the rights of the majority to govern themselves.

Not quite dude. But, what do you think the Bill of Rights is for? To protect majority speech and majority religious views?

And you still haven't provided the citation in support of your earlier wild claim. Perhaps you should retract it?

 

[DianeCourt]

so freedom of speech, pervades freedom of speech with religion, this is a truly sad situation

I don't think you understand. You're making a false comparison. When was the last gay-pride speech at a football game?

Prayer is not allowed before high school football games. However, if the school routinely rents out the stadium (say, for a gay-pride rally) then they can also rent the stadium out to Christian groups. There is a time and place for everything.

Also, I didn't quote it here, but in one of your other posts you mentioned the free exercise rights of politicians. They can exercise their religion all they choose outside their official capacity, but their actions--when they are acting in their official roles--are bound by establishment guidelines. It's another false comparison.

 

[watt]

yeah and the original colonists werent oppressed because they had different religious views

 

[Sociopath4Jesus]

That's a "lemon" of a test, alright.

Care to explain why?

 

[GiantGerbil]

The pyramid on the back of your money is the 'mark of the beast'. the word 'mark' is a word for money(the German currency is literally called the 'mark'). The pyramid is a phallus. It is the more generalized, compact symbol of the obelisk, such as the Washington Monument. You will find these obelisks in every city, in the Vatican, in Moscow, In Paris, in every capital city on Earth, in Beijing. It symbolized the male sexual force, or sexual power. That is the essence of the homosexual agenda, to exert sexual power over us, i.e RAPE us. These evil gods control our government. The pyramid only appeared on the dollar in 1950's, when Satan captured our government.

Notice the 'eye' of the phallus, and how the 'tip' of the pyramid is cut off. This symbolized circumcision, which refers to one of the secrets of their Godhood, the cultivation of sexual power.

 

[Godzman]

I don't think you understand. You're making a false comparison. When was the last gay-pride speech at a football game?

Prayer is not allowed before high school football games. However, if the school routinely rents out the stadium (say, for a gay-pride rally) then they can also rent the stadium out to Christian groups. There is a time and place for everything.

Also, I didn't quote it here, but in one of your other posts you mentioned the free exercise rights of politicians. They can exercise their religion all they choose outside their official capacity, but their actions--when they are acting in their official roles--are bound by establishment guidelines. It's another false comparison.

I also think that the freedom of religion establishment clause is not neccesarily a bad things but is poorly defended by the first amendment.

But no it doesn't matter where your at in public as long as your not disturbing the peace, you can pray or talk about homosexuality, should not change anything.

The public arena is open for all, no a select few

 

[Godzman]

The pyramid on the back of your money is the 'mark of the beast'. the word 'mark' is a word for money(the German currency is literally called the 'mark'). The pyramid is a phallus. It is the more generalized, compact symbol of the obelisk, such as the Washington Monument. You will find these obelisks in every city, in the Vatican, in Moscow, In Paris, in every capital city on Earth, in Beijing. It symbolized the male sexual force, or sexual power. That is the essence of the homosexual agenda, to exert sexual power over us, i.e RAPE us. These evil gods control our government. The pyramid only appeared on the dollar in 1950's, when Satan captured our government.

Notice the 'eye' of the phallus, and how the 'tip' of the pyramid is cut off. This symbolized circumcision, which refers to one of the secrets of their Godhood, the cultivation of sexual power.

 

[Godzman]

yeah and the original colonists werent oppressed because they had different religious views

Did I say that

 

[Sociopath4Jesus]

it doesn't matter if it is in a public place and wont disrupt the peace and cause harm it should be allowed.

Freedom of speech goes both ways.

For the umpteenth time, Santa Fe was an establishment clause case, and has nothing to do with free speech. Read a case or two before you start commenting on them.

 

[watt]

freedom comes with responsibilities

 

[Sociopath4Jesus]

I also think that the freedom of religion establishment clause is not neccesarily a bad things but is poorly defended by the first amendment.

What the?