Nadler derides God...

[The Barbarian]

They haven’t said anything concerning God’s standards in politics.

They have, however, prohibited government from endorsing or establishing any religion whatever.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a three-pronged test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional a statute must have “a secular legislative purpose,” it must have principal effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Twenty-six years later the Court modified the Lemon test in Agostini v. Felton (1997) by combining the last two elements, leaving a “purpose” prong and a modified “effects” prong.

In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), a group of justices led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his dissent developed a coercion test: the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will.
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)

The endorsement by Congress of a particular religious tradition's view of God's will would establish a state religion. Which is what the Supreme Court has determined.

 

[The Barbarian]

The SC hasn’t made a decision to ban God.

They couldn't. The second part of the 1st Amendment prohibits that, just as the first part of the 1st Amendment prohibits government from establishing religion.

But as you know, the OP had to do with Gateway Pundit lying about what Congressman Nadler said.

 

[Hammster]

They have, however, prohibited government from endorsing or establishing any religion whatever.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a three-pronged test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional a statute must have “a secular legislative purpose,” it must have principal effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Twenty-six years later the Court modified the Lemon test in Agostini v. Felton (1997) by combining the last two elements, leaving a “purpose” prong and a modified “effects” prong.

In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), a group of justices led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his dissent developed a coercion test: the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will.
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)

The endorsement by Congress of a particular religious tradition's view of God's will would establish a state religion. Which is what the Supreme Court has determined.

Once again (should I put it in underlined bold italics?) nobody is arguing for a religion. This is an argument over morality, and there is only one morality. We have morality because of God. He should not be excluded from American Politics.

 

[Hammster]

They couldn't. The second part of the 1st Amendment prohibits that, just as the first part of the 1st Amendment prohibits government from establishing religion.

But as you know, the OP had to do with Gateway Pundit lying about what Congressman Nadler said.

And as you know, I’ve been arguing against the full quote you provided.

 

[The Barbarian]

And as you know, I’ve been arguing against the full quote you provided.

Doesn't matter. It's in the Congressional record. No way to deny it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Once again (should I put it in underlined bold italics?) nobody is arguing for a religion.

Then you should be pleased that Nadler is asserting the First Amendment.

This is an argument over morality,

Only in the sense that the OP brings up the lie that the blogger was telling about Nadler. But even atheists have a moral code that excludes lying.

and there is only one morality.

You think atheists have the same morality we do?

We have morality because of God.

So do they, according to Romans 2:14.

He should not be excluded from American Politics.

All the First Amendment does is exclude religion from government, and excludes government from religion. Nevertheless, I can refuse to vote for republicans because they support a man who uses the Ten Commandments as bathroom tissue. Government, however, can't implement that kind of restriction.

 

[Hammster]

Doesn't matter. It's in the Congressional record. No way to deny it.

And my comments are in relation to the quote you provided.

 

[Hammster]

Then you should be pleased that Nadler is asserting the First Amendment.



Only in the sense that the OP brings up the lie that the blogger was telling about Nadler. But even atheists have a moral code that excludes lying.



You think atheists have the same morality we do?



So do they, according to Romans 2:14.



All the First Amendment does is exclude religion from government, and excludes government from religion. Nevertheless, I can refuse to vote for republicans because they support a man who uses the Ten Commandments as bathroom tissue. Government, however, can't implement that kind of restriction.

Okay. I realize now that you aren’t actually engaging with my comments. I see no need to continue.

Good day.

 

[The Barbarian]

And my comments are in relation to the quote you provided.

It's in the Congressional record. Gateway Pundit lied about what he said. No way to deny it.

 

[Hammster]

It's in the Congressional record. Gateway Pundit lied about what he said. No way to deny it.

And again, since you are ignoring what I’m saying, I see no need to continue.

 

[The Barbarian]

And again, since you are ignoring what I’m saying, I see no need to continue.

But you did. So, I'm guessing that you're still getting something out of the discussion. I've certainly found it interesting. Particularly Ignatius was challenging in his defense of establishment and the historical context of Christian belief. Still waiting for one more reply from him, but it's been very worthwhile. Have you been following his posts?

 

[FanthatSpark]

Thank you for the concepts . Learned much!! The following questions might be subjective in view as to religion to the currency/dollar?

Is this the divide of our congress and the constituencies of moralities religions both R's and D's ?

That question can get lost in translation of life experiences and/or facts of the participants "self" included. So, let me unpack that question from what I am learning from above posts combined with limited life experience.

No religion purporting to Gods will (as religions stem from translations of mankinds interpretations, be it written or Spiritual. ) is constitutionally unsound in first amendment. Yet, the unwritten religion to currency has merit & practiced by congress/Gov. The similarity of the unwritten religion and the atheist source code of the ten commandments, and/or, Treat others as you would be treated, is uncanny (can not be explained without belief).

That question above wherein the unwritten religion that feeds our kids, or bombs Syria, may have us as a people miss labeling our brother or sister to divide the many of moral religions so currency religion can continue?.