Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9011 total)
51 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,566 Year: 13,314/23,288 Month: 244/795 Week: 40/33 Day: 12/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is America a Christian Nation?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 206 (546965)
02-15-2010 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
02-14-2010 2:30 PM


That article has a picture titled "Original Image: “‘Declaration of Independence,” by John Trumbull/The Bridgeman Art Library"

...

Can someone say photoshop? Can someone say phaque? Can someone say HOAX?

I read that as them saying that the original picture that this altered one was based on is “‘Declaration of Independence,” by John Trumbull/The Bridgeman Art Library"... Not that what you are seeing is the original picture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2010 2:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 206 (546991)
02-15-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by DC85
02-15-2010 4:05 PM


Re: Representative Leadership
except in our country issues relating to human rights a barred from being voted on and left to courts.

Not in California...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by DC85, posted 02-15-2010 4:05 PM DC85 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 02-15-2010 4:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 29 by DC85, posted 02-15-2010 8:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 206 (547033)
02-15-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by DC85
02-15-2010 8:24 PM


Re: Representative Leadership
Not in California....

indeed mainly concerning marriage and few religious issues however unconstitutional cases like this need to be appealed to the Supreme court

So they're not barred from being voted on, then?

If it were constitutional to do this we would still have segregated schools in the south.

that's awefully prejudiced... and FYI, Virginia IS 'the south'.

It's a disgrace to allow voting on such things

Erm, in light of the 10th Amendment I'd have to disagree.

Or would you prefer a Federal State of America as opposed to just a bunch of united ones?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by DC85, posted 02-15-2010 8:24 PM DC85 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Taz, posted 02-15-2010 10:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-23-2012 11:27 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 206 (547108)
02-16-2010 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Otto Tellick
02-16-2010 1:40 AM


(3) Laws must not be based solely on religious doctrine -- each law must have a motivation and purpose that allow it to stand on its own in the face of rational and objective scrutiny, without appeal to supernatural causation or scriptural exegesis.

Where does that come from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-16-2010 1:40 AM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-21-2010 10:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 206 (547338)
02-18-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by misha
02-17-2010 5:41 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Where does that come from?

It originated in 1878 with Reynolds vs US. Supreme Court decided that it was right in restricting religious action but not belief as long as the restriction was on a rational basis. The idea was that if they sided with Reynolds then anyone could do whatever they wanted and claim that their "religion" requires them to do it, resulting in complete lawlessness. Supreme Court decided that although the US could not determine "what" you believe it was capable of restricting your actions pertaining to said beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

Since then it is commonly referred to as the Lemon Test based on Lemon vs Kurtzman. Supreme Court made the following guidelines to determine adherence to the First Ammendment Establishment Clause:

-The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

-The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

-The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

Hey thanks. I did not know that.

You replied to Taq... If you would have replied to me sperately, then I would have gotten an email notifying me of the reply. I just happened to stumble across this but I could have missed it.

Just FYI.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by misha, posted 02-17-2010 5:41 PM misha has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 206 (547339)
02-18-2010 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taq
02-18-2010 10:00 AM


At the same time, this does not mean that laws derived from a theological view are wrong.

Too often I hear people claiming they are.

Its all those pop-neo-atheists that just despise religion. Like, the 20-somethings that bitch on facebook. You know, like Taz.

And since you don't see the other atheists all up in arms about it, then obviously they condone and support it


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 02-18-2010 10:00 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taz, posted 02-18-2010 9:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-22-2010 12:00 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020