Originally posted by PinkFloyd Oh, I checked. And "told" should have read "taught"--that was my bad. I had real teachers.
And as the intelligent people on here have pointed out, those words ARE never mentioned in the Constitution. It's debatable whether or not that's the meaning, just like "rapture" and "trinity" in the Bible (as also cited), but the fact is, the issue is not spelled out.
Yes, those words are not in the constitution. However, the words that are in the constitution are regularly and properly interpreted by judges all the way to the supreme court to essentially mean that.
I think it's being a bit disingenuous to suggest that just because those specific words aren't in the constitution then the concept isn't in the constitution.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn Yes, those words are not in the constitution. However, the words that are in the constitution are regularly and properly interpreted by judges all the way to the supreme court to essentially mean that.
I think it's being a bit disingenuous to suggest that just because those specific words aren't in the constitution then the concept isn't in the constitution.
I never said I didn't agree with the concept--I only stated what has been taught to many of us for a long time, and obviously, still charges debates even today.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd Now it's all about the license plates. Some people want to buy the state approved plates with the wordds "I Believe" on them, along with a white cross. The usuals have come in to fight these plates in court. An ACLU guy told me that the "state had kicked in part of the money" to start the production of the "I Believe" plates, so I guess that was wrong. ...[text shortened]... buy a vanity plate, he should be able to, right? Including one that professes his faith?
Did you ask that "guy" if it is legal to have a "I do not Believe" type of license plate from the state?
Originally posted by PinkFloyd Now it's all about the license plates. Some people want to buy the state approved plates with the wordds "I Believe" on them, along with a white cross. The usuals have come in to fight these plates in court. An ACLU guy told me that the "state had kicked in part of the money" to start the production of the "I Believe" plates, so I guess that was wrong. ...[text shortened]... buy a vanity plate, he should be able to, right? Including one that professes his faith?
The issue isn't about "if someone wants to buy a vanity plate, he should be able to". It's about the fact that the state of South Carolina shouldn't be issuing license plates via its DMV endorsing Christianity.
"There's a fundamental difference between these plates and the 'I believe' tag," wrote Rob Boston, the Assistant Director of Communications of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "South Carolina can endorse NASCAR and even name it the official state sport. It cannot legally endorse Christianity."
For those who haven't seen the plate here's a link with a picture of a sample plate. It's about as blatant as you can get.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2409.asp
Interestingly enought the state already has "In God We Trust" plates along with "In Reason We Trust" plates for atheists.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/pix/humanist.jpg
Maybe the State Motto of SC should be, "Anything for a Buck". 🙂
Originally posted by PinkFloyd I never said I didn't agree with the concept--I only stated what has been taught to many of us for a long time, and obviously, still charges debates even today.
You did more than say that, you suggested that it wasn't in the constitution.
I'm glad you agree with the concept and I hope you believe it belongs in the constitution.
What appears to me to charge debates is the attempts to violate this concept and this part of the constitution by those would either think this is officially a "christian country" or have no problem with establishing christianity as the supported faith of the nation.
We've already violated this clause with the pledge of allegiance and "in god we trust" being on our money.
The fact that we have cases like this show that there are many in government who either don't understand this part of the constitution or don't respect it.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn You did more than say that, you suggested that it wasn't in the constitution.
I'm glad you agree with the concept and I hope you believe it belongs in the constitution.
What appears to me to charge debates is the attempts to violate this concept and this part of the constitution by those would either think this is officially a "christian country" o ...[text shortened]... vernment who either don't understand this part of the constitution or don't respect it.
or maybe they just don't think it's important enough to make a Federal case out of it. 🙂
Originally posted by PinkFloyd Oh, I checked. And "told" should have read "taught"--that was my bad. I had real teachers.
And as the intelligent people on here have pointed out, those words ARE never mentioned in the Constitution. It's debatable whether or not that's the meaning, just like "rapture" and "trinity" in the Bible (as also cited), but the fact is, the issue is not spelled out.
The thing is, this fits so well in with DSR and his Think Tanks. They think, they teach you, you believe what comes down from above.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Do you believe Reason is inconsistent with Religion?
Not at all. I believe the earth is 4.5 byo becuase or science and reason. I also believe in the supernatural nature of God, who can override the laws of nature, physics, etc. No inconsistencies as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd Not at all. I believe the earth is 4.5 byo becuase or science and reason. I also believe in the supernatural nature of God, who can override the laws of nature, physics, etc. No inconsistencies as far as I'm concerned.
So license plates about reason are not the atheist version of license plates about Christianity, right?
church v. state rears ugly head in SC
27 Jul '08 04:45
Back to Top