Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Neverstop said:I've often questioned the validity of those as well. On the one hand, they make sense because troops have different religious backgrounds, though most are Chrstian of some sort. The chapels and chaplains are there because of the nomadic environment of military life.
It is an endorsement of religion, and as such, it does violate the Constitution. It's one of those things that is very tricky.
MethodMan said:I could tell by your statement. Take a walk through some time. Look specifically at the gravestones.
12volt_man said:OK. Where is the state religion and what laws are being passed?
How can a state pass a law concerning Arlington when Washington DC isn't in a state and when Arlington is federal property?
Neverstop said:The government does not have to create a theocracy to violate the Constitution.
Even though Washington is just a District, it is still Federal property, and as such, government property, and as such, cannot pass ANY law respecting the establishment of religion.
Laws HAD to be passed to create the cemetary and afford the opportunity for religious symbols to be used as markers.
12volt_man said:That's not what I asked you. As usual, you're evading the question.
Again, what religion has the government established?
Yes, they did. Now would you please explain to us how this violates the law.
Neverstop said:Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding. Maybe it will be clearer if I say there is no state religion and that one does not have to be created to violate the constitution.
The government has not established any religion in the form of a theocracy, but again, this is not a necessary condition to violate the Cons.
OK. How does the use of religious icons in the cemetary violate the Constitution?Neverstop said:The creation of the cemetery itself does not violate the Cons...it is the use of religious icons within the cemetery.
As I've said, there does not have to be a state religion in order for there to be a violation. I.e. People not being allowed to buy alcohol because it is Sunday is a violation. It is a law that respects the establishment of religion.
12volt_man said:OK. How does the use of religious icons in the cemetary violate the Constitution?
But how do these laws establish a religion?
Neverstop said:They respect the establishment of religion. Maybe another way to think of it is to replace the word establishment w/ "institution."
As stated, they do not have to establish a specific religion. The laws respect the establishment of religion itself.
12volt_man said:How does it establish a religion?
The problem is that the idea of respecting the establishment of religion (and, by the way, I asked you to explain to us what this phrase meant and you never did) is referring to the idea of Congress establishing a state religion, such as the Church of England.
Neverstop said:This has been answered a few times in the last few posts.
Surely, it is referencing the Church of England but it is an inclusive reference, not exclusive.
Actually, I did it explain it.
OK.
How many people in this thread believe that neverstop has explained the meaning behind the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion", as found in the 1st Amendment?
Show of hands: Anyone?...anyone at all?
12volt_man said:No it hasn't. You haven't explained one time how this establishes a religion.
OK.
How many people in this thread believe that neverstop has explained the meaning behind the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion", as found in the 1st Amendment?
Show of hands: Anyone?...anyone at all?
Neverstop said:Once again, there does NOT have to be a specific "State Religion" in order to violate the cons.
I have addressed this at least 5 times in the last few posts, with two clear examples.
Post 97, for any who may have not seen it.
12volt_man said:With the exception of "blue laws", which has nothng to do with the topic at hand, none of the examples you cite would hold up in court.
OK. In all fairness, that was an explanation. A weak explaination, but an explaination, nonetheless.
The problem with your explanation is that, in addition to no state religion having been established, you don't show what laws are based on religion, where crosses and veterans' cemetaries are concerned.
Neverstop said:Actually, Massachusetts recently repealed the Laws banning the sale of alcohol on Sunday. So, one of my examples is directly from a very recent case.
Post 106
The government does not have to create a theocracy to violate the Constitution. Even though Washington is just a District, it is still Federal property, and as such, government property, and as such, cannot pass ANY law respecting the establishment of religion. Laws HAD to be passed to create the cemetary and afford the opportunity for religious symbols to be used as markers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?