[Jaime_Souviens]

NorthCelt NorthCelt:

Although I should also say that judges are asked to decide ('rule') on issues of legal importance; that's they're job. If you don't like their decision, you can protest or become an activist to organize a challenge to their ruling. You cannot arbitrarily decide that you're not going to follow their decision. That's 'anarchy'.

No, no, no...

1) you're free to appeal to a higher court,

2) you're free to disobey a court order assuming you're willing to accept the consequences.

NorthCelt NorthCelt:

The US Constitution is exceedingly clear on the matters of separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson said "That my neighbour believes in no god or twenty gods affects me not at all; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Bush and his hard-right evange-phalangists are seriously screwing up this time-honoured principle.

There's no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. It doesn't say that. Anywhere.

There is a prohibition on the U.S. government selecting an official religion.

But there's no prohibition on state governments selecting official religions, and, in fact, at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, several of them DID have established religions.

Nothing personal, NorthCelt, 9,999 people in 10,000 get this wrong, and it's such a subject of controversy that most people have heard wrong more than they've heard right.

[VitaminC]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

VitaminC VitaminC:

That Article That Article:

In Texas, a U.S. District judge decreed that any student uttering the word "Jesus" at his school's graduation would be arrested and locked up.

Come on, you don't really believe that a judge said that do you? That web site is BS if you ask me.....

First of all Judges don't "decree" anything.......

In our legal system you can't sentence someone to jail before the so-called offence has been committed....

VitaminC, you're really a stupid person. You should look into that before you post.

Judges issue injunctions all the time. About virtually anything.

VitaminC VitaminC:

The idea that a Judge would "decree" that someone be sent to jail based on something they might do is ludicrous......No Judge would say that....

Is that Pat Robertsons site or something?

People need to get a grip and learn to distinguish between news websites and BS like that.......LOL

I can't believe you thought that was a real news site.

It's more credible than you are. I have a hard time believing you're a real person.

Sure Judges make injunctions....but that article said the Judge "decreed" that anyone who used the word "Jesus" would be sent to jail.....

Usually injunctions are against specific people, not "anyone who says.....blah blah..."

Just tell me you think that a judge actually said that and I won't feel the need to comment on your intellect the way you feel the need to comment on mine.

I mean if anyone here thinks that someone could be sent to jail for using the word "jesus"......I can't even believe I'm commenting on that......if you believe that.....

I'm speechless....

[VitaminC]

Jaime_Souviens:

I've always wondered, what exactly are you trying to "say" with your name?

Shouldn't it be J'aime Souvenir?

J'aime souviens doesn't really make any sense.......I like remember.....

[NorthCelt]

$1:

No, no, no...

1) you're free to appeal to a higher court,

2) you're free to disobey a court order assuming you're willing to accept the consequences.

Ok, as for 1), there's nowhere to go beyond the federal supreme court, which I should have made clear. You can bring challenges and appeals before it, but there's nothing beyond it. Unlike the selection process in Canada, the United States' selection process for Supreme Court Justices is highly politicized. As we've seen this past fall, qualifications mean nothing and loyalty means everything.

2) Well, of course. I didn't think that needed to be said. But if everyone chose to ignore rulings, it would indeed be 'anarchy'.

The US Constitution contains a considerable degree of 'intent' and 'tradition'. One of the cornerstone pieces is that the government will not impose one religious belief over another. At the time, this pertained almost exclusively to Christian-based beliefs. Because of its literal nature, the Supreme Court has made rulings affecting religious beliefs that maintain this 'literal' intent. The irony in this is that christian evange-phalangists (my word, copyrighted!) such as Pat Robertson and James Dobson (who's 'Focus on the Family' organization wants to open up an Ottawa office now that Harper's been elected) accuse any Supreme Justice who rules against their core beliefs to be 'non-strict constructionists', when in fact their rulings, because they are so literal, is extremely 'strict constructionist'. They just happen to dislike the way it affects them.

Our supreme court operates much more methodically and deliberately; appointees are specifically told to leave their politics at the door. Let's hope this never changes.

[ambivalent]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Secondly, freedom shouldn't mean "freedom from" (as in freedom from having to listen to other people's opinions and beliefs) but "freedom to" (as in freedom to express your own opinions and beliefs).

I'm agnostic, nee (and raised) Catholic.

I'm a big fan of "freedom from religion". Honestly, I have no problem with people choosing to go to church, and even the existence of churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, what-have-you - and religious schools. They are EXACTLY where religion belongs.

However, when I am walking down the street minding my business, or even attending a meeting, no religion. I don't care what flavour it is.

Oh, and I would dearly love it if Toronto could pass a law making taxis official RELIGION-FREE ZONES. I do not appreciate being someone's hostage for the duration of the ride and being forced to listen to their proselytizations.


Oh, and if the cartoon was really about "freedom of expression" they'd have run other cartoons offending other people's religions in proximity to the one of Mohamed.

I don't think they are really fooling anyone.

[Blue_Nose]

ambivalent ambivalent:

Oh, and I would dearly love it if Toronto could pass a law making taxis official RELIGION-FREE ZONES. I do not appreciate being someone's hostage for the duration of the ride and being forced to listen to their proselytizations.

A man's taxi is his castle

[Thematic-Device]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

There's no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. It doesn't say that. Anywhere.

There is a prohibition on the U.S. government selecting an official religion.

But there's no prohibition on state governments selecting official religions, and, in fact, at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, several of them DID have established religions.

Nothing personal, NorthCelt, 9,999 people in 10,000 get this wrong, and it's such a subject of controversy that most people have heard wrong more than they've heard right.

This is completely incorrect...

Establishment has more then one definition, it is not merely the "act of establishing" but also a noun referring to a structure or an insitution.

$1:

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.

That is the key word, if it meant simply that the US cannot create a state religion the article would have been a THE. But since it is an, it means that the US government can make no law which is about or regards in any fashion a religion.

The US cannot pass a law to give 4 billion to churches because those churches are establishments of religion. The law doesn't regard the establishment of a state religion, but it will regard an "establishment of religion".

This is reinforced by the views expressed by the founding fathers in regards for their desire for the federal government to stay wholly uninvolved with religion. Some believed that the individual states should have their own religions and some of them did. But, since the 14th amendment was passed that is no longer possible.

Of course the people who write the tripe that you're repeating damn near verbatim, have never had a very good grasp of history or grammar so its not very surprising that their reasoning is off.