Another Example of Intolerable Extremists

[keith99]

What would Jesus do?
"But God, you have to be practical."

War is an ugly, nasty business. "Gott mitt Uns" is not an American notion.

Actually, it is, just not uniquely American.

I present The War Prayer by Twain as evidence that Americans thought God was with them going back over a century.

https://www.people.vcu.edu/~toggel/prayer.pdf

But being a Lunatic I could be wrong.

 

[Laodicean60]

All people have been created the same, but I’m hoping you’re not trying to bring pacifism into this thread.

I am not.

 

[rjs330]

If the government endorses a religious position, then we do *not* have religious freedom.

Incorrect, if the government passes a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof then you have lost religious freedom.

 

[rjs330]

Our legal rights are listed and discussed in the Constitution, etc. The US government take no stand on the existence of your god.

That's incorrect again. The constitution forbids government from passing a law establishing a religion. Government certainly can say there is a God.

 

[Pommer]

Aren't all people created in the image of God? Even the ones our government tells you to kill?

All people have been created the same, but I’m hoping you’re not trying to bring pacifism into this thread.

If I could make a jump like this Bob Beamon would drop to third in the long-jump!

 

[Pommer]

That's incorrect again. The constitution forbids government from passing a law establishing a religion. Government certainly can say there is a God.

Government can say that most people in the Nation that the government administers believe in (at least one) God.
It cannot identify which one(s) that might actually be.

 

[Pommer]

What would Jesus do?
"But God, you have to be practical."

War is an ugly, nasty business. "Gott mitt Uns" is not an American notion.

It’s the basis for Christian Nationalism though.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

It would be perfectly okay to stick the icon of St. Joseph in a non distracting area of the plane, as long as you do not cover up the instruments (radar, speedometer, etc).

No, it would not be.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hans Blaster said:

If the government endorses a religious position, then we do *not* have religious freedom.

Incorrect, if the government passes a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof then you have lost religious freedom.

No, you're wrong. If the government endorses a religion, then we have lost religious freedom. Read it here:

Amendment I​

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.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution to revoke religious freedom. Good luck with that.

That's incorrect again. The constitution forbids government from passing a law establishing a religion. Government certainly can say there is a God.

No, it cannot. Notice that the amendment is written to exclude that. It doesn't say that Government can't establish "a religion." It says "religion" period. They anticipated people like Christian nationalists.

After I retired, I became a science teacher. Once, I had kids do a poster on a particular topic. One of them wanted to put a religious argument into the poster. He (very bright kid) asked if that was O.K. I said that I couldn't do it, but I was pretty sure that he could. After I got the principal's concurrence, I told him he could do it.

And he did.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, it is, just not uniquely American.

Christian nationalism is not pro-American. But we do have them.

 

[rjs330]

Government can say that most people in the Nation that the government administers believe in (at least one) God.
It cannot identify which one(s) that might actually be.

They could actually. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting any member of the government including the president from proclaiming what God they think is the real god.

 

[rjs330]

No, you're wrong. If the government endorses a religion, then we have lost religious freedom. Read it here:

Amendment I​

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.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution to revoke religious freedom. Good luck with that.


No, it cannot. Notice that the amendment is written to exclude that. It doesn't say that Government can't establish "a religion." It says "religion" period. They anticipated people like Christian nationalists.

After I retired, I became a science teacher. Once, I had kids do a poster on a particular topic. One of them wanted to put a religious argument into the poster. He (very bright kid) asked if that was O.K. I said that I couldn't do it, but I was pretty sure that he could. After I got the principal's concurrence, I told him he could do it.

And he did.

You wrong. You gave list no freedom of religion unless laws are passed prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You should read it again. I don't need to change the Constitution. Its pretty clear. As long as the government doesn't pass any laws we are fine. That's what the constitution says. You should know, you quoted it.

 

[Pommer]

They could actually. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting any member of the government including the president from proclaiming what God they think is the real god.

Only as their personal opinion on the matter, certainly not codified into a law or Act, (in their official capacity).

 

[The Barbarian]

You wrong.

Nope. That's the Law of the Land.

You gave list no freedom of religion unless laws are passed prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Could you rephrase that in English?

You should read it again

You can read it a hundred times; it won't change.

I don't need to change the Constitution.

If you want to revoke our freedom from religion, you'll have to do that.

Its pretty clear. As long as the government doesn't pass any laws we are fine.

No, that's wrong. The First Amendment bans any establishment of religion. And if you want to limit it to laws, then (for example) a government could have a "policy" of not allowing Christian churches. Or they could just send the police to shut down Christian churches. You want to open that door? This is exactly why the courts have looked to the intent of the founders and accordingly stopped any government interference in religion, either to establish it or to suppress it.

That's what the constitution says.

Yep. So, in your interpretation, they can prohibit free exercise of religion, so long as they don't pass a law to do it. The door swings both ways. Maybe you should give it a little more thought, um?

Edit: Just in case anyone thinks that only Congress is obliged to respect our religious liberties, Amendment XIV requires all government agencies to do so.

 

[o_mlly]

People learn to leave well enough alone and stop trying to use government power/property to promote their particular religion.

Tell it to the LGBTQABCDEFG+ community.

If the government endorses a religious position, then we do *not* have religious freedom.

Nah. The first amendment is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Endorsing religion is not synonymous with establishing a religion.

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

The US government take no stand on the existence of your god.

? Apparently, you have no US government paper currency in your wallet.

 

[o_mlly]

No, it cannot. Notice that the amendment is written to exclude that. It doesn't say that Government can't establish "a religion." It says "religion" period.

The absence of the indefinite article "a" does not change the meaning of the First Amendment" one iota. Or, if you like "an iota"; same thing.

 

[FreeinChrist]

In this case, it's the ironically mislabeled Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) objecting to canine handling soldiers expressing their Christian faith. It seems that putting Biblical scripture dog tags on their service animals offends MRFF's intention for a godless society.

Once again, an organization who's soul purpose is to undermine America's Christian heritage chooses to oppose God and oppress good citizens under the misguided notion of separation of church and state. Not only has MRFF failed to understand the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment concerning freedom of religion, but it has demonstrated intolerance towards those who would express their faith in any public way.

I'd hope that religious people of all faiths would see the problem with this and that irreligious people could learn to understand that in America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion - at least that's what the highest laws of the land hold.

'Shields of Strength' Gets Greenlight to Sue DoD for Prohibiting Military Dog Tags with Bible Verses

The faith-based seller of military-themed dog tags engraved with inspirational Bible verses has been cleared to pursue a

www2.cbn.com

What is frustrating about this thread is that the article in OP does not really address the issue.
What is at issue is that the shape of the dog tags that Shields of Strength violates the Trademark of the DOD regarding dog tags.

See the lawsuit:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-e-d-tex/2199705.html

In 2011, the military's approach shifted. At that time, the military had finished creating and staffing Trademark Licensing Program Offices (“trademark offices”) to implement trademark-licensing authority that Congress granted to the Secretary of Defense in 2004.19 Those trademark offices license the military's registered marks for use on commercial products such as shirts, hats, and mugs,20 creating licensing fees used to pay for the trademark program and for morale, welfare, and recreation activities in the military.21..........​

​

d. In accordance with subpart 2635.702 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (Reference (h)), DoD marks may not be licensed for use in a manner that creates a perception of DoD endorsement of any non-federal entity or its products and services. DoD marks may not be licensed for any purpose intended to promote ideological movements, sociopolitical change, religious beliefs (including non-belief), specific interpretations of morality, or legislative/statutory change. Marks may not be fraudulently or wrongfully affixed pursuant to sections 506 and 1017 of Title 18, U.S.C. (Reference (i)).​

​

The commercial dog tags have the official trademarked Marine Corps emblem on them, in violation of military trademark regulations.
The DoD ignored the trademark issue until 2019 when the Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent a letter complaining about it.
So the DoD acted and stopped production.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Tell it to the LGBTQABCDEFG+ community.

Your typographical error has no relevance in reply.

Nah. The first amendment is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Endorsing religion is not synonymous with establishing a religion.

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

Are prepositions the next particle of speech that is going to cause you guys problems? What's next, articles? Favoring one god position, even in a generic sense, is still a problem. Invoking a Protestant for excludes Catholics and Orthodox; invoking a Christian form (or Jesus) excludes Jews and Muslims; Invoking plain "God" might exclude Muslims (who prefer Allah even in English); Invoking a singular deity or creator (like "God") excludes polytheists and non-theists.

? Apparently, you have no US government paper currency in your wallet.

I do have some notes issued by the Federal Reserve Bank, though. I know what your at: "In God We Trust". Just because the Supreme Court put the fig leaf of "ceremonial deism" (which frankly sounds kind of blasphemous to most actual religions) on the phrase does not mean it isn't a violation. The court, after all, has ruled that a Latin Cross is an appropriate marker of commemoration of the dead generically, and that bribes payed for official acts of the President are not prosecutable. Their credibility isn't real high right now.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it cannot. Notice that the amendment is written to exclude that. It doesn't say that Government can't establish "a religion." It says "religion" period.

The absence of the indefinite article "a" does not change the meaning of the First Amendment" one iota.

No, you're wrong about that. If it prohibited government from establishing a religion and from prohibiting a religion from being practiced, then it could establish religion generally or prohibit religious practice generally. And as you know both of these are contrary to the intent of the founders.

Or, if you like "an iota"; same thing.

In this case, a lambda. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

[o_mlly]

Your typographical error has no relevance in reply.

No typographical error. You get the point. Religions as special interest groups ought not use the government to promote their "special interests". So should all other special interest groups, eg., LGBTQUVWXYZ..

Are prepositions the next particle of speech that is going to cause you guys problems?

The law is coded in words. All the words make a difference, ask any lawyer, eg., "It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is".

I do have some notes issued by the Federal Reserve Bank, though.

Deflection. Do those notes not read, "United States of America" on their face? The Fed Reserve Act made those notes our legal tender.

Just because the Supreme Court put the fig leaf of "ceremonial deism" (which frankly sounds kind of blasphemous to most actual religions) on the phrase does not mean it isn't a violation.

Deflection.