ACLU, Defending Religious Freedoms?

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
When I attempt to interpret what the authors of the Constitution intended I have to think that Thomas Jefferson made it clear, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist church, that the church and the state should be kept separated.

I always find it amusing that Conservatives want the Constitution to fall in line with the founders' intent (not an entirely unreasonable position in and of itself), right up until one of the founders says something (As Jefferson did in the Danbury letter) which explicitly contradicts what the Conservatives want that intent to have been.

Then it's all, "But that's not in the Constitution!"
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,424
15,512
✟1,115,106.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have no idea what you are talking about. The part of my post that you quoted is a straight statement of unarguable fact.
Your objection to it may indeed be on topic for this thread, as it bears on the subject of religious expression in the public schools.
How does it bear on the subject of religious expression in the public schools?
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Your arguments are based upon a liberal interpretation of the constitutional law, The four liberals Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan, will fully agree, and Kennedy the moderate could be added to the number.

Indeed -- and you have no argument whatsoever.

Liberal or conservative, any argument will always beat no argument.

The conservative laws are in place to revist and to overturn Roe V. Wade

Paul Ryan's Personhood Amendment Threatens the Constitutional Rights of Women Across America

Actually, they're not in place, nor are they likely to be. You should probably rely on sources a bit more recent than a 2013 article. Ryan introduced (actually, reintroduced, since some form or another of that bill has floated around Congress for decades) to establish his Conservative cred in 2012 for his vice-presidential run. That bill died in committee as surely as Ryan died at the ballot box.

Such bills with similar (and in many cases, identical) wording are introduced year after year in Congress, as regularly as clockwork, and die in committee with equal regularity.
 
Upvote 0

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
5,093
1,317
✟93,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is true, didn't say they had.

Agree.

You cannot invoke the word 'God' without establishing religion. Not 'A' religion, but religion.

Yup, the Church of England, chosen by the government of England.

When I attempt to interpret what the authors of the Constitution intended I have to think that Thomas Jefferson made it clear, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist church, that the church and the state should be kept separated.
Once the government made it a law that all children Must attend school then the public school system became a mandate of the government that cannot make any law establishing religion, therefore the public school cannot be involved in practicing any form of any religion if anyone attending that school, or the parents, have an objection.
It's my opinion Hank that it's interpretation, and weve seen "The Liberal" aspect for many years, that will soon be the conservative with one more conservative Supreme court appointment.

Huffington Post:

Atheists Lose Latest Battle To Remove ‘In God We Trust’ From U.S. Currency

By Lauren Markoe, Staff Writer For Religion News Service 5/29/14

Atheists lost their case against the “In God We Trust” motto on the nation’s currency Wednesday.

It’s a battle they have lost several times before as court after court has affirmed that printing and engraving the country’s motto on its money does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs, a group that included humanists and minor children, argued before a federal appeals court that the words amount to a government endorsement of religion, disallowed by the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. They further held that, forced to carry around a religious statement in their pockets and pocketbooks, their constitutionally guaranteed right to freely exercise religion is being violated.

But the three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York noted that the courts have long looked at the motto not so much as the entanglement of government in religion, but as a more general statement of optimism and a “reference to the country’s religious heritage.”

The decision in Newdow v. United States of America pleased those who have worked to protect religious expression in the public sphere. “Americans need not be forced to abandon their religious heritage simply to appease someone’s animosity toward anything that references God,” said Rory Gray of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

But it frustrated those who see religion creeping into places where they believe church and state should be separated. The group American Atheists, which was not a party to the suit, said the court’s reasoning — based on historical acceptance of the motto — is faulty.

“Tradition is a terrible excuse for any behavior,” said American Atheists spokesman David Muscato. “If we allowed ‘tradition’ to guide our views, what else would we uphold — slavery, denying the vote to women? The simple fact is that ‘In God We Trust’ has no rightful place on currency in the United States, a country with separation of church and state, and it never has.”

Atheists have seen a spate of unfavorable rulings lately. Last week a federal court in Kentucky rejected atheists’ suit against the IRS, for the many breaks and privileges it offers churches and religious organizations. And in the 5-4 Greece v. Galloway ruling earlier this month, the Supreme Court affirmed that government bodies may convene meeting with highly sectarian prayers.

The 2nd Circuit also questioned the atheists’ objection to money that forces them “to bear on their persons … a statement that attributes to them personally a perceived falsehood that is the antithesis of the central tenant of their religious system.” The atheists had reminded the court that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the government to prove that it has gone to great pains to avoid so burdening religious expression.

“We respectfully disagree that appellants have identified a substantial burden upon their religious practices or beliefs,” the judges responded.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
How does it bear on the subject of religious expression in the public schools?
Because religious conservatives sometimes suggest "non-denominational" prayer in the schools as a compromise which ought to be acceptable to all Christians at least. You need to understand why it is not--without being insulted.
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,205
7,555
✟349,119.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Huffington Post:

Atheists Lose Latest Battle To Remove ‘In God We Trust’ From U.S. Currency

By Lauren Markoe, Staff Writer For Religion News Service

Atheists lost their case against the “In God We Trust” motto on the nation’s currency Wednesday.

It’s a battle they have lost several times before as court after court has affirmed that printing and engraving the country’s motto on its money does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs, a group that included humanists and minor children, argued before a federal appeals court that the words amount to a government endorsement of religion, disallowed by the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. They further held that, forced to carry around a religious statement in their pockets and pocketbooks, their constitutionally guaranteed right to freely exercise religion is being violated.

But the three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York noted that the courts have long looked at the motto not so much as the entanglement of government in religion, but as a more general statement of optimism and a “reference to the country’s religious heritage.”

The decision in Newdow v. United States of America pleased those who have worked to protect religious expression in the public sphere. “Americans need not be forced to abandon their religious heritage simply to appease someone’s animosity toward anything that references God,” said Rory Gray of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

But it frustrated those who see religion creeping into places where they believe church and state should be separated. The group American Atheists, which was not a party to the suit, said the court’s reasoning — based on historical acceptance of the motto — is faulty.

“Tradition is a terrible excuse for any behavior,” said American Atheists spokesman David Muscato. “If we allowed ‘tradition’ to guide our views, what else would we uphold — slavery, denying the vote to women? The simple fact is that ‘In God We Trust’ has no rightful place on currency in the United States, a country with separation of church and state, and it never has.”

Atheists have seen a spate of unfavorable rulings lately. Last week a federal court in Kentucky rejected atheists’ suit against the IRS, for the many breaks and privileges it offers churches and religious organizations. And in the 5-4 Greece v. Galloway ruling earlier this month, the Supreme Court affirmed that government bodies may convene meeting with highly sectarian prayers.

The 2nd Circuit also questioned the atheists’ objection to money that forces them “to bear on their persons … a statement that attributes to them personally a perceived falsehood that is the antithesis of the central tenant of their religious system.” The atheists had reminded the court that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the government to prove that it has gone to great pains to avoid so burdening religious expression.

“We respectfully disagree that appellants have identified a substantial burden upon their religious practices or beliefs,” the judges responded.

Some might see a difference between carrying around a slogan on your currency and having your children forced to kneel... just sayin'
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That's not how that works. The Supreme Court has decided that up to a certain point "personhood" as far as the Constitution is concerned doesn't apply to fetuses. Congress cannot mandate a particular Constitutional interpretation.

No, but it's always fun to watch them try...
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Because religious conservatives sometimes suggest "non-denominational" prayer in the schools as a compromise which ought to be acceptable to all Christians at least. You need to understand why it is not--without being insulted.

How about all the non-Christians? What would they all find acceptable?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
How about all the non-Christians? What would they all find acceptable?
That's a whole different story. I can't see how anyone would want anything but strict religious neutrality in the public schools. I was just pointing out that strict Evangelical Protestant denominational neutrality isn't it. Somehow that was taken to be an insult.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
5,093
1,317
✟93,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you have an actual conservative interpretation to counter it?
It wont be long before the US Supreme court will give their conservative majority ruling on overturning Roe V. Wade.

Who do you think will write the disent opinion?

Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Or Kagan?

Are you blind to the fact of legislation that is established to overturn Roe V. Wade?

Paul Ryan's Personhood Amendment Threatens the Constitutional Rights of Women Across America

H.R.586 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Sanctity of Human Life Act

Introduced in House (01/17/2017)
Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.

H.R.4712 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Introduced in House (12/21/2017)
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

This bill amends the federal criminal code to require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital. The term "born alive" means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut.

H.R.2956 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Parental Notification and Intervention Act of 2017

Introduced in House (06/20/2017)
Parental Notification and Intervention Act of 2017

This bill prohibits a person or organization from performing, facilitating, or assisting in the performance of an abortion on an unemancipated minor under age 18 without first complying with parental notification requirements, subject to exceptions.

It establishes penalties—a fine, up to one year in prison, or both—for each willful violation.

A parent who is required to be notified of an abortion of an unemancipated minor may bring an action in federal district court to prohibit the abortion.

H.R.4849 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Taxpayer Conscience Protection Act of 2018
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,205
7,555
✟349,119.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
It wont be long before the US Supreme court will give their conservative majority ruling on overturning Roe V. Wade.

Who do you think will write the disent opinion?

Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Or Kagan?

Are you blind to the fact of legislation that is established to overturn Roe V. Wade?

Paul Ryan's Personhood Amendment Threatens the Constitutional Rights of Women Across America

H.R.586 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Sanctity of Human Life Act

Introduced in House (01/17/2017)
Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.

H.R.4712 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
Congress does not have the power to declare how the courts should interpret the Constitution. Congress can propose a Constitutional amendment declaring that personhood starts at fertilization, but they cannot not declare the same by simple Act of Congress. So based on judicial precedent, do you have a conservative argument to overturn Roe V. Wade?

ETA: Also, you should check your facts better. Those bills you linked never became law. So maybe you should make sure what you are saying is accurate before attempting to insult my intelligence.
 
Upvote 0

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
5,093
1,317
✟93,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Congress does not have the power to declare how the courts should interpret the Constitution. Congress can propose a Constitutional amendment declaring that personhood starts at fertilization, but they cannot not declare the same by simple Act of Congress. So based on judicial precedent, do you have a conservative argument to overturn Roe V. Wade?

ETA: Also, you should check your facts better. Those bills you linked never became law. So maybe you should make sure what you are saying is accurate before attempting to insult my intelligence.
Yeah, one more conservative Supreme court justice appointment when Kennedy retires and the revisited argument will be decided by a conservative majority Supreme court.

How was that for an argument? :amen:
 
Upvote 0

super animator

Dreamer
Mar 25, 2009
6,223
1,961
✟134,615.00
Faith
Agnostic
Yeah, one more conservative Supreme court justice appointment when Kennedy retires and the argument will be decided by a conservative majority Supreme court.
Ah judicial activism then? Is that something you utterly despised?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,438
13,190
Seattle
✟915,458.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, one more conservative Supreme court justice appointment when Kennedy retires and the revisited argument will be decided by a conservative majority Supreme court.

How was that for an argument? :amen:

Is it your belief that judges make decisions based only on their ideology? Or do they actually rely on reasoning, precedent, and the law? If you believe the former it is a good argument. If you believe the later it is poor.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,205
7,555
✟349,119.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Yeah, one more conservative Supreme court justice appointment when Kennedy retires and the revisited argument will be decided by a conservative majority Supreme court.

How was that for an argument? :amen:
So you don't see any legal reason why it should be overturned?
 
Upvote 0

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
5,093
1,317
✟93,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ah judicial activism then? Is that something you utterly despised?
You bet Im actively supporting conservative Supreme court Justices, thats a no brainer!

Just like the liberals are looking for 9 Ruth Ginsburg appointments, God forbid!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
5,093
1,317
✟93,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is it your belief that judges make decisions based only on their ideology? Or do they actually rely on reasoning, precedent, and the law? If you believe the former it is a good argument. If you believe the later it is poor.
Justices rule with personal prejudice, why do you think Liberals and Conservatives are so concerned about Supreme Court appointments.

Justices are chosen by presidents directly related to their historical rulings on issues.

You Think Obama Or Hillary would have chosen "Neil Gorsuch" for appointment :scratch:

To say Supreme Court Justices are politically and socially neutral is a "Real Big Smile"!
 
Upvote 0