By your interpretation it would seem we should forbid swearing oaths of office on bibles.
Seems like an implicit endorsement of Christianity by the government to me
Also wait for you to advocate for removing Christmas as a federal holiday.
Through the establishment clause Americans have a freedom from religion that is sponsored or endorsed by the state. Considering the context of Mr. Perry's case, this is clearly what he was trying to do.
In this sense, a freedom from religion is clearly true.
What happened to him last primary? Even his own party thought he was an idiot and wouldn't vote for him.
By your interpretation it would seem we should forbid swearing oaths of office on bibles.
Seems like an implicit endorsement of Christianity by the government to me
Also wait for you to advocate for removing Christmas as a federal holiday.
By your interpretation it would seem we should forbid swearing oaths of office on bibles.
Seems like an implicit endorsement of Christianity by the government to me
Also wait for you to advocate for removing Christmas as a federal holiday.
lol
The spidey kiss of death.
Through the establishment clause Americans have a freedom from religion that is sponsored or endorsed by the state. Considering the context of Mr. Perry's case, this is clearly what he was trying to do.
In this sense, a freedom from religion is clearly true.
"Freedom of religion" allows anyone who wants to practice whatever religion they want (as long as the practice of such does not impact the freedoms of other people, i.e. no virgin sacrifices, etc.)
Nowhere in the literal translation or the "spirit" of the translation does it imply that people have freedom "from" religion, in that they have the right to restrict the religious practice of others.
What that means is that if someone wants to pray in a public place, you have no right to stop them.
This is different than separation of church and state. The idea behind that doctrine is that the US is not a theocracy and should not ever be. The federal government must treat all religions the same and cannot pick a "winner" over the others. Nor can the federal government compel people to practice any specific religion (including atheism.)
So, having established all that, the notion that "Americans have freedom from religion" is clearly false.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry's failed plot to force Merck & Co.'s Gardasil vaccine on millions of young girls in the Lone Star State has sparked renewed interest among Americans, as to what all the controversy is about concerning the vaccine
The mainstream media's response to the incident has included a lot of whitewashing, as well as a full-scale damage control operation to reaffirm the supposed safety of Gardasil, which is alleged by Merck to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV) and some forms of cervical cancer. But the cat is out of the bag as thousands of curious Americans, many for the first time, are learning about the very real dangers associated with the Gardasil vaccine.
By your interpretation it would seem we should forbid swearing oaths of office on bibles.
Seems like an implicit endorsement of Christianity by the government to me
Also wait for you to advocate for removing Christmas as a federal holiday.
No one is required to take any oath on the bible, everyone is free to affirm in whatever way they wish. The swearing of the oath is not performing any function of the office that they are swearing into.
The courts have already decided this one.
I actually think that all oaths of office should be sworn on a copy of the Constitution. That's what they're swearing to uphold afterall. If they want to also have a Bible, Koran, copy of The Origin of Species, whatever then ok. But it should ALWAYS be beneath the copy of the Constitution. Public officials in this country should hold the Constitution above all other things, even their own faith, when they legislate of make rulings (in the case of judges).
It seems you have missed my point entirely. I am neither condemning nor condoning this bill. I am just predicting that in the near future, jihadwatch will misinterpret this bill to illustrate how Sharia Law is infiltrating Texas, and it is Obama's fault.Please show us on the doll where the Christian touched you.
Also, did you know liberals want to take your childen and make them worship Democrats? That you can get HIV from toilet seats?
I haven't read the bill but if Christians can say "merry Christmas" without fear then that's a good thing. If anyone greets or wishes another goodwill based on any cultural or religious perspective, why should that be banned? What fools they be.
You are saying that being sworn into an office is not a function of the office
You are saying that the courts have decided that government can endorse religion.
You're a moron. I'm saying that the way in which someone individually chooses to take their oath of office is not an act of government. The government requires an oath, but does not specify how that oath is taken.
No, the courts have decided that so long as the government can identify a secular purpose for a day they can recognize a day that may also have religious significance.
NOBODY should have the right to say i can't have manger in my yard or such.
The First Amendment guarantees four things. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and um ... um ... I forget the fourth thing. Oops.
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.
Freedom of not freedom from. There is a big difference.
Nothing he talks about related to congress establishing a national religion or congress passing a law that prohibits the exercise of certain religions.
There isn't a big difference. In order to have "freedom of", by default one has to have "freedom from". The Protestant has the freedom of practicing their brand of Protestantism and the freedom from Catholicism, for eg. You can't have one without the other.
There isn't a big difference. In order to have "freedom of", by default one has to have "freedom from". The Protestant has the freedom of practicing their brand of Protestantism and the freedom from Catholicism, for eg. You can't have one without the other.
Think about it.
Think about what?
Congress has neither established a national religion or prohibited the exercise of certain religions.
A Christmas decoration for instance neither establishes a national religion or prohibits the exercise of other religions.
If you are arguing that there must be a void of religion to exercise religion makes no sense and would imply that atheism in its self is a religion if the existence of religion prohibits its exercise.
Seems to me there is no constitutional right to exercise the lack of religion.
Unless atheism is a religion. But then its not atheism. Universe explodes.