quote:



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.[71]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:



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.[71]

NOWHERE does it say that a theocracy cannot exist on our shores (not what I'm calling for, by the way). It does specifically say that government can't fuck with religion but it does not state the converse.

The language is pretty simple, really; congress can't establish a religion nor can it hinder our ability to practice as we see fit (no forcing us to pay for abortions and birth control. Sorry, Andrea).

It's ironic because when I read the article, earlier today, somewhere in the first paragraph were the words "separation of church and state" but those words don't appear in the constitution ... anywhere (I've looked).

I want to be clear: I NEVER want to see a theocracy in this country but, until you change the constitution, it could happen, legally. It doesn't matter. It already has. Liberalism is the political wing of the "earth religion".





Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Theocracy means a system of govt. ruling by a God as supreme civil ruler. (God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities)

Now if you think that still does not invoke 'religion'...Scalia and Thomas at least...would likely be on your side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Theocracy means a system of govt. ruling by a God as supreme civil ruler. (God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities)

Now if you think that still does not invoke 'religion'...Scalia and Thomas at least...would likely be on your side.

Where did I ever say that theocracy doesn't invoke religion? I said; as the constitution presently reads, it could happen.

I also said (twice) that I didn't want it to happen. So ... where's the beef?



Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well of your meaning is the invocation of religion then that is what is specifically prohibited by the constitution and I never said that you said. I said if you think or...if you meant.....

Then, to establish theocracy would be to...establish a religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well of your meaning is the invocation of religion then that is what is specifically prohibited by the constitution and I never said that you said. I said if you think or...if you meant.....

Then, to establish theocracy would be to...establish a religion.

Okay. I think I might have caused some confusion so let me clarify (if I can)...

The way the constitution reads, it prevents government from establishing a religion or hindering my practice of it. That doesn't mean that some bible-thumper can't get themselves elected. Once they're elected, as we all know, they don't represent their constituents, they "lead"; they do what they think is right. In the case of our bible-thumper (or any devoted sectarian), that would mean bringing their values to their deliberations.

In fact, if you read the declaration and some of the writings of the founding fathers, they seemed to be okay with representatives being led by their conscience, as given them by "Nature's God".

Having said all of that, it would be entirely possible for a group of people, acting in concert (bound by whatever common goal) to advance an agenda without government "establishing" a religion.



Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

You are absolutely correct and every president since JFK is doing just that now...to stay alive. '

However, [it] has no religious affiliation or influences. 'They' are called the Illuminati, which is mostly the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral comm. and the CFR. (Council on Foreign Relations)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

You are absolutely correct and every president since JFK is doing just that now...to stay alive. '

However, [it] has no religious affiliation or influences. 'They' are called the Illuminati, which is mostly the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral comm. and the CFR. (Council on Foreign Relations)

I would posit that the Illuminati are a religion. I guess we could argue that at some length but, I will just simply say that if my surmise is correct, money is their "god" and power is their method of practice.







Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Sounds about right to me. Seems though they have both in spades (power and money) so what's left is using them to effect the changes they seek. They are very patient but if they are waiting for the dollar to crash...seems they shouldn't hold their breath.

But on the other hand, we haven't seen them use law in the sense that a religion or a religious theocracy is being established and I am sure...don't want that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:



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.[71]

NOWHERE does it say that a theocracy cannot exist on our shores (not what I'm calling for, by the way). It does specifically say that government can't fuck with religion but it does not state the converse.

The language is pretty simple, really; congress can't establish a religion nor can it hinder our ability to practice as we see fit (no forcing us to pay for abortions and birth control. Sorry, Andrea).

It's ironic because when I read the article, earlier today, somewhere in the first paragraph were the words "separation of church and state" but those words don't appear in the constitution ... anywhere (I've looked).

I want to be clear: I NEVER want to see a theocracy in this country but, until you change the constitution, it could happen, legally. It doesn't matter. It already has. Liberalism is the political wing of the "earth religion".

quote:

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:



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.[71]

NOWHERE does it say that a theocracy cannot exist on our shores (not what I'm calling for, by the way). It does specifically say that government can't fuck with religion but it does not state the converse.

The language is pretty simple, really; congress can't establish a religion nor can it hinder our ability to practice as we see fit (no forcing us to pay for abortions and birth control. Sorry, Andrea).

It's ironic because when I read the article, earlier today, somewhere in the first paragraph were the words "separation of church and state" but those words don't appear in the constitution ... anywhere (I've looked).

I want to be clear: I NEVER want to see a theocracy in this country but, until you change the constitution, it could happen, legally. It doesn't matter. It already has. Liberalism is the political wing of the "earth religion".

That's because you left out part.

How exactly could a theocracy function with this as part of the Constitution:
Article VI

quote:

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:



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.[71]

NOWHERE does it say that a theocracy cannot exist on our shores (not what I'm calling for, by the way). It does specifically say that government can't fuck with religion but it does not state the converse.

The language is pretty simple, really; congress can't establish a religion nor can it hinder our ability to practice as we see fit (no forcing us to pay for abortions and birth control. Sorry, Andrea).

It's ironic because when I read the article, earlier today, somewhere in the first paragraph were the words "separation of church and state" but those words don't appear in the constitution ... anywhere (I've looked).

I want to be clear: I NEVER want to see a theocracy in this country but, until you change the constitution, it could happen, legally. It doesn't matter. It already has. Liberalism is the political wing of the "earth religion".

That's because you left out part.

How exactly could a theocracy function with this as part of the Constitution:
Article VI

quote:

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Scalia is a constitutional hypocrite. Derides the court for rulings such as those he claims are from a 'living' document but celebrates those that create law (constitutional rights) whole cloth out of thin air...supporting the concept that corporations are people and property (money) is speech.

Scalia and his lap dog Thomas are among the worst justices...ever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:



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.[71]

NOWHERE does it say that a theocracy cannot exist on our shores (not what I'm calling for, by the way). It does specifically say that government can't fuck with religion but it does not state the converse.

The language is pretty simple, really; congress can't establish a religion nor can it hinder our ability to practice as we see fit (no forcing us to pay for abortions and birth control. Sorry, Andrea).

It's ironic because when I read the article, earlier today, somewhere in the first paragraph were the words "separation of church and state" but those words don't appear in the constitution ... anywhere (I've looked).

I want to be clear: I NEVER want to see a theocracy in this country but, until you change the constitution, it could happen, legally. It doesn't matter. It already has. Liberalism is the political wing of the "earth religion".

That's because you left out part.

How exactly could a theocracy function with this as part of the Constitution:
Article VI

quote:

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Partly because there's a de facto religious test. If you announce you are an atheist and run for your President, do you have any chance today? No. Atheists are bottom of the barrel when it comes to approval. Now, it's not as much so as it used to be and it's not as though politicians won't lie about that, like anything else.

The point is that if most people won't vote for someone unless he's of a certain religion -- or religious -- then democratically speaking, you have a vox populi religious test. Nothing to do with Congress.

There are plenty of laws that have a religious basis, both right and left. So once you're in, you can use your personal religious beliefs to guide you as you want and you can even trumpet those beliefs in running for office (even if you're lying).

Thus, we can't prevent someone from trying to run. Pragmatically, though, the chances of atheistic success aren't very high (sure, there are likely limited regions where exceptions would apply, such as Los Alamos, NM, which comprises mostly scientists).

The other way to circumvent the Constitution here has to do with the definition of "religion." The Founders likely had in mind the conventional religions. But once you step outside the major religions, then you do have issues such as: Is worship of Gaia "religious"? worship of "The Earth," not even Mother Earth?; etc.?

So could we have a state religion, de jure? No. But a lot could be accomplished (so to speak) without that. And, consider that a severely attenuated state religion (e.g., Church of England) doesn't establish a theocracy at all. Thus, it is technically possible (not that I am advocating this at all: this is a rhetorical point) to have a state religion without having a theocracy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
I find Justice Scalia's opinion to be quite disturbing. The very idea of the court system is to be balanced and fair...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
I find Justice Scalia's opinion to be quite disturbing. The very idea of the court system is to be balanced and fair...

If you believe Scalia is interested in a balanced and fair court system, then you haven't been paying attention.

His "interpretations" are justifications to suit his political agenda.