It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The administration's budding theocracy is challenged

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
www.baltimoresun.com... /nationworld/bal-te.scotus01mar01,0,6540088.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

The "faith-based initiative" is being challenged, and wouldn't you know it, the president's two lackeys in the supreme court are backing it.

I personally don't think the Freedom From Religion group has a chance because technicalities and legal loopholes can be used to support the gross bias that exists within the US Supreme Court. My assumption is that the taxpayer's ability to sue over misappropriated tax money will be thrown out, and this will give the current and future administrations the ability to commit grave injustices unchallenged.




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I couldn't believe this:


From the link in the OP
It would be too "intrusive on the executive branch" to permit lawsuits contesting the way the president and his advisers conduct their affairs, he said.


These are their affairs?!? They work for us, and these are our affairs. What the supporters of this are implying is that we, the people, should not be allowed any redress if we disagree with the way our money is being spent. They imply that we should not meddle in the president's business, as if it isn't our business.

I would never voluntarily give over a large portion of my own money on a regular basis to some stranger and say, "Do whatever you want with it, it's none of my business." Yet this is what we are being asked to do when we pay taxes.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

personally don't think the Freedom From Religion group has a chance because technicalities and legal loopholes can be used to support the gross bias that exists within the US Supreme Court.



First of all, the constituition promises "Freedon of religion," not "Freedom from religion." Although, I do believe in the separation of church and state, I do think that this is something many fail to understand.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
First of all, the constituition promises "Freedon of religion," not "Freedom from religion." Although, I do believe in the separation of church and state, I do think that this is something many fail to understand.


speaker, are you familiar with "everson v board of education"?

in it, the supreme court ruled that the interpretation that we have freedom FROM religion is logically derived from the first amendment

and honestly, how can you justify my tax dollars going to fund a church that converts people actively or to erect a cross in a public park?



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
speaker, are you familiar with "everson v board of education"?

in it, the supreme court ruled that the interpretation that we have freedom FROM religion is logically derived from the first amendment

and honestly, how can you justify my tax dollars going to fund a church that converts people actively or to erect a cross in a public park?


You rule, it's like you're doing the arguing for me.

Your last point is the only one that REALLY matters to me. I know I can't help that the government is completely biased, regardless of the actual law, but I personally don't want my money to be spent on a fairytale. This is the type of thing that causes citizens to stop paying their taxes.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I'm not sure which God our Government is supposed to be biased towards, but it is certainly not the God of Abraham. Followers of the God of Abraham and Jesus will not be polluting themselves by meddling in the affairs of Government. This is contrary to what the scriptures teach; Yes, I understand your tax dollars shouldn't be spent promoting ANY religion, etc.etc.....just PLEASE understand: followers of the Cross, TRUE followers, will never impose their will on Government. These people that do are deceivers. The very book they supposedly get their "religion" from says as much.

Oh, and some fairy tales come true, btw.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
speaker, are you familiar with "everson v board of education"?

in it, the supreme court ruled that the interpretation that we have freedom FROM religion is logically derived from the first amendment

and honestly, how can you justify my tax dollars going to fund a church that converts people actively or to erect a cross in a public park?


Dude, you took the words practically out of my mouth.
Freedom from Religion...


Peace

dAlen



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
speaker, are you familiar with "everson v board of education"?

in it, the supreme court ruled that the interpretation that we have freedom FROM religion is logically derived from the first amendment

and honestly, how can you justify my tax dollars going to fund a church that converts people actively or to erect a cross in a public park?


Here is what the clause actually states:


"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
Nothing about freedom from religion

It states that a state or federal government cannot sanction a religion. For example: The state can't come in and say you must be Christian.

However, no where does it state that you will be free FROM any type of religion whatsoever. No where does it state that. It says that you can choose not to participate in a religion, but that still doesn't mean that you are free FROM religion because you are going to still be exposed to it. Thank ya.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
it also says AID ALL RELIGIONS. including the words "under god" or "in god we trust" is aiding all religions. giving money to religions is aiding religion. we have freedom from religion, in the scope of public affairs regarding governmental institutions



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join