Air Force Academy creates worship area for Pagans, Druids, and Wiccans

I agree Buz. Freedom to practice your own religion isn't the same thing as having your religion officially recognized by an official body of the government and you and I know that the true God won't tolerate that for long.

That would be better, yes.

The nation has already gone so pagan that shutting down a chapel would be just another expression of it just as creating worship space for pagan religions is. As far as the overall safety of the nation from God's wrath goes, officially endorsing NO religion is safer than endorsing a pagan religion.ABE: It's an official recognition to create a worship space.Since they already recognize Buddhism and Islam, of course the deed has already been done anyway. Might as well include the Wiccans.But it's not a good thing for the safety of the country or the success of our military operations. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The idea that the first amendment was ever meant to give space to anything OTHER than the Christian religion in this nation is something you and I are going to disagree on.

Jazzns, the Constitution has provisions written into it for changing whatever subsequent generations want to change, done so that the majority of the people and the states can have their input into it. That is the way to go about it. It isn't right to allow a few fallible judges to interpret it the way they want to.

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114"My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:214 Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Sorry for all the edits. Just kept finding quotes I liked and added them.

You are suggesting that I take a court judgment as the authority over the view of one of the founding fathers? Clever.

The very idea of the "popular understanding" makes me shudder. It wasn't popular understanding but the wisdom of centuries in the hands of the most educated men of the day that wrote the Constitution.But yes, the PEOPLE are the final arbiters according to that wisdom.I don't think the founders' intent is all that obscure when you know something about the philosophical and cultural climate in which they wrote the Constitution. It does take knowing more than most of us know to judge these things."Our modern understanding" is degenerate. Too bad. I suppose there's no hope for us.

The Constitution created the three branches equal, it did not grant the Supreme Court power over the other two.To answer your edit, there are no checks and balances when one branch can trump the other two. That was the point of Jefferson's many statements on the subject. The Constitution did not grant the Court that power, he says, and by usurping it they become despots over the whole nation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I haven't thought it through, but it sounds like a good idea to me considering the way things have gone so I'll say yes.

If the Executive and Legislative are acting unconstitutionally, you think the Supreme Court's acting unconstitutionally is going to remedy things?

Prayer.That's about it.

OK, here's my proposal for a new amendment as per your request:Due to the passage of time and changing customs in the nation, many have come to regard the first amendment guaranteeing religious freedom to be ambiguous, which has led to rancorous disputation that disturbs the peace. We propose an amendment in the hope of resolving the dispute.The disputation having its center in the question whether the amendment specifically applied to the various denominations of Christianity extant at the time of writing or was meant to be extended to cover other religions as well, especially considering that our Congress once upon a time opened in the name of Jesus Christ, and inaugurated new members up until 1920 in that sacred Name, we amend it to specifically exclude ever saying that Name in public, especially in the rituals of government, and to include all those other religions under its protection in keeping with the current climate of opinion, naming the following but not intending to exclude any others by this list: Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, Voodoo, Zoroastrianism, Satanism, prohibiting only those religious practices that in any way threaten the peace of the community or the life or wellbeing of other citizens.Well, it's not perfect but consider it a first draft.================
That's my more or less serious attempt. Here's where I think the nation is REALLY going, however:Due to the passage of time and changing customs in the nation, many have come to regard the first amendment guaranteeing religious freedom to be ambiguous, which has led to rancorous disputation that disturbs the peace. We propose an amendment in the hope of resolving the dispute.Since Congress has made no law breaching the original amendment but on the other hand the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in such a way as to make such a law in any case, on occasion prohibiting the freedom of specifically the Christian religion (forbidding children to use the Bible in their work, or even bring it to school, or a teacher to have it on his/her desk) while advancing the interests of other religions in the public schools (having children celebrate Ramadan), for instance, we propose that this interpretation of the amendment be explicitly stated:The visible practice of Christianity in the nation should be utterly abolished, and Christians subject to fines for any public display of their beliefs. They should further be made to feel the humiliation of their foolish and ignorant beliefs by being elbowed off the sidewalk and spat upon by Muslims as has been done in the past and is still done in the practice of dhimmitude in some Muslim nations. Regular raids on Christian households should also be encouraged as also practiced in some Muslim nations, also Hindu nations for that matter, burning their houses and churches and the people themselves. In other nations, however, dhimmitude is also practiced against Jews and Hindus and any nonMuslim religion, so we explicitly forbid that. Except for the Jews. A modified dhimmitude is permitted against Jews, Zionist Jews in particular. But Christians are to be most especially so treated. Churches should be taxed or turned over to the government to be used for other purposes. We particularly recommend the voodoo ritual of eating the head off a live chicken to be practiced on church lawns and encourage the making of voodoo curses against Christians.The Supreme Court is explicitly designated as the arbiter of all laws, which they are hereby explicitly permitted to write themselves, ignoring the Constitution and the Congress and the President alike, not to mention the people.We amend the first clause of the first amendment that says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion to add that the Supreme Court can if it so desires.We rescind the second clause of the first amendment that prohibits prohibiting the free exercise of religion as regards the Christian religion, but retain it as regards all other religions, particularly those that practice blood sacrifice and especially honoring those that practice human sacrifice. We strongly recommend the erection of a bronze statue of Moloch in the place of the Lincoln memorial, complete with provision for the burning of children. Christian children are most especially recommended for the purpose but Jewish children make a nice second choice.Edited by Faith, : to add first line to clarify what this post is about

Since others disagree with you, however, the point would be to resolve the disagreement by establishing the predominant interpretation of what it means in writing as a new Constitutional amendment.

The one I drafted for Jazzns above in Message 49.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.