For your misguided information. Your boy Obama has not tried to repeal the patriot act either. It would seem after his first meeting with homeland security he decided it would be advantageous to keep tabs on these idiots after all.
I misread it, You are correct. He cannot make a law regarding religion, period. By the same token he could not make a law banning it.
If some of them care to gather in the hallway or the parking lot for a prayer prior to a meeting, they have that right. But no one can pass a law requiring it.
I skimmed through the article and responded more to the comments. I stand corrected.
Regarding your post on Freemasonry, Are you aware that The Freemasons are a fraternal order. Members join for the purposes of socializing and networking, and the organization itself commonly expresses its purpose as to "make good men better." It has nothing to do with religion.
To opine that the founding fathers could not be BOTH Free masons and Christians simoutaneously is ludicrous.
It is the equivalent of saying you cannot be member of the roatary club and still be a Christian or Muslim or Catholic. It makes no sense.
History shows these men mentioned to be deeply religious and members of Churches
There are so many misconceptions here regarding "Separation of Church and state". Here are some facts;
The phrase is not uttered in our constitution. It was however included in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Dunsbury Baptists in 1802.
The letter was written to qwell fears the baptist had regarding the constitution and its cause and effect on religion. In the letter he wrote the following;
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
That given, the letter was to assure the Baptists that the church had been protected by the first ammendment. There is simply no other way to intterput it. Now lets look at the 1st ammendment wich states;
>>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Congress shall make no law respecting religion" (Respecting) used here as (concerning) or (Considering).
So I see the nothing in the first ammendment whatsoever that would prohibit practice of religious faith on public property. If anyone else sees it please show me where it is.
However, If the mayor votes into law a measure prohibiting practice of religion on public property he would then be in direct conflict with the 1st ammendment wich clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting religion".
Bottom line, It is not unconstitutional to exercise religious beliefs on public property.
However it would be unconstitutional to make a law prohibiting religion, or only allowing certain religions to express themselves.
Nigerian charged with attempt on airliner; his father warned U.S. about him
Hey Northside girl,
For your misguided information. Your boy Obama has not tried to repeal the patriot act either. It would seem after his first meeting with homeland security he decided it would be advantageous to keep tabs on these idiots after all.
December 27, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Ohio mayor vetoes city council prayers
I misread it, You are correct. He cannot make a law regarding religion, period. By the same token he could not make a law banning it.
If some of them care to gather in the hallway or the parking lot for a prayer prior to a meeting, they have that right. But no one can pass a law requiring it.
I skimmed through the article and responded more to the comments. I stand corrected.
October 16, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Ohio mayor vetoes city council prayers
ATOWNPARENT,
Regarding your post on Freemasonry, Are you aware that The Freemasons are a fraternal order. Members join for the purposes of socializing and networking, and the organization itself commonly expresses its purpose as to "make good men better." It has nothing to do with religion.
To opine that the founding fathers could not be BOTH Free masons and Christians simoutaneously is ludicrous.
It is the equivalent of saying you cannot be member of the roatary club and still be a Christian or Muslim or Catholic. It makes no sense.
History shows these men mentioned to be deeply religious and members of Churches
October 16, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Ohio mayor vetoes city council prayers
There are so many misconceptions here regarding "Separation of Church and state". Here are some facts;
The phrase is not uttered in our constitution. It was however included in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Dunsbury Baptists in 1802.
The letter was written to qwell fears the baptist had regarding the constitution and its cause and effect on religion. In the letter he wrote the following;
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
That given, the letter was to assure the Baptists that the church had been protected by the first ammendment. There is simply no other way to intterput it. Now lets look at the 1st ammendment wich states;
>>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Congress shall make no law respecting religion" (Respecting) used here as (concerning) or (Considering).
So I see the nothing in the first ammendment whatsoever that would prohibit practice of religious faith on public property. If anyone else sees it please show me where it is.
However, If the mayor votes into law a measure prohibiting practice of religion on public property he would then be in direct conflict with the 1st ammendment wich clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting religion".
Bottom line, It is not unconstitutional to exercise religious beliefs on public property.
However it would be unconstitutional to make a law prohibiting religion, or only allowing certain religions to express themselves.
October 16, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. permalink suggest removal