Amendment One, North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban, Passes Vote

airportcop said:
I wasn't attacking you or jiro but you were both wrong about the Constitution mentioning separation of church and state! I know the first amendment well! Remember what I do for a living?! Don't depend on jiro to defend you, he is not always right. Stand up for yourself, be strong! Have a good night!
Click to expand...

Both of Jiro and I are correct - look at First Amendment.

No, I don't depend on Jiro and we support to share whatever is fact.
 
rolling7 said:
You also need to read THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE and the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, both upheld by the Supreme Court.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the U.S. CONSTITUTION, stating

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, also upheld by the Supreme Court,

("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")

the two clauses make up what is called the "religion clause" of the First Amendment.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE has generally been interpreted (by the Supreme Court) to prohibit

1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress

2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another
Click to expand...

In bold, you prove that I'm correct.
 
Last edited:
airportcop said:
Really? Can you tell me the last time it was amended? I'll give you a hint! Probably before you or foxrac were born maybe?!
Click to expand...

last time it was amended? 1992. 27th Amendment.

so yea it was after our birth dates.
 
rolling7 said:
You also need to read THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE and the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, both upheld by the Supreme Court.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the U.S. CONSTITUTION, stating

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, also upheld by the Supreme Court,

("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")

the two clauses make up what is called the "religion clause" of the First Amendment.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE has generally been interpreted (by the Supreme Court) to prohibit

1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress

2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another

The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation.
The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another but does NOT prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to active the purpose of the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.
Click to expand...

:ty: :ty: :ty: :ty: for proving my point.
 
airportcop said:
I think you are discombobulated and misconstrued with this answer! It is all over where? Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

all over the Constitution and legal cases.

for starter... Engles vs Vitale (1962) on prayer in school. Supreme Court ruled that prayer in school violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.
 
Jiro said:
:ty: :ty: :ty: :ty: for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Hello, could you care to explain?

Some portion of rolling7's post is confusing me.
does NOT prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to active the purpose of the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.
Click to expand...

What is religious domain?
 
Foxrac said:
Hello, could you care to explain?

Some portion of rolling7's post is confusing me.


What is religious domain?
Click to expand...

anything relating to religion like church, synagogue, etc.
 
So, what is wrong with praying in school? Can children pray in school or do they serve detention if caught praying in school?


(one of the many reasons I left Gallaudet is because a group of Christians were told they were not allowed to pray on campus grounds by a LGBT group - the LGBT group even tried to have campus security enforce their will on the Christians - I think Congress should cut funding of Gallaudet if Christians are not free to practice their faith on campus).


Also, aren't we straying off the topic a bit?
 
Foxrac said:
I'm saying that First Amendment has some concept - separation of government and religion, that's not really my opinion but definition in this amendment should be clear.
Click to expand...

Yet it's not the same concept at all....
 
Steinhauer said:
So, what is wrong with praying in school? Can children pray in school or do they serve detention if caught praying in school?


(one of the many reasons I left Gallaudet is because a group of Christians were told they were not allowed to pray on campus grounds by a LGBT group - the LGBT group even tried to have campus security enforce their will on the Christians - I think Congress should cut funding of Gallaudet if Christians are not free to practice their faith on campus).


Also, aren't we straying off the topic a bit?
Click to expand...

Any students are allowing to praying on their own in public school, however they should not disrupt teacher's instruction. Do it during lunch time or free time are fine.

When is your last time to enroll at Gallaudet University? I don't see your situation is existing anymore. You are free to praying anywhere whatever you want, except for classes or programs that where instructors are in session that can't be disrupted. There are worship groups on campus every week and I haven't hear any complaints from Christians about situation with GLBT and anti-gay bullying are extremely rare, except for few immature freshmen who can't accept and doesn't know how to respect, however good thing about upperclass have influence on freshmen about how college is running. Gallaudet University has anti-bullying policy that cover sex orientation and you can't directly provoking at gay students to explain about their sex orientation is unnatural, sin or wrong. None of worship groups carry sex orientation as major issue and they are just focus on spiritual.

My thread is already went off topic and destroyed by infested with trolling. I'm not pleased at all and I ask ALL MEMBERS to refraining from trolling. Whoever agree or disagree with side should let go. My thread isn't place to discuss about separation of religion and church so all of them should goes to debate section, however religious discussion are forbidden in Alldeaf.

I'm concerned about having you could make my thread so much worse and I don't want my thread to be locked. I had request a moderator to review and clean up. I'm very disappointed about how members are behaving like that.

FYI, your post is off topic and please sticking with this topic as possible. Rest of remaining quote can be answered by PM me.
 
TXgolfer said:
Not a problem for me.....I'm glad that is not what the constitution says. :)
Click to expand...

No, I disagree, your glad is nowhere.

Don't put your silly belief in my mouth, period.

Please back on topic and let forget about separation of church and state.
 
Foxrac said:
No, I disagree, your glad is nowhere.

Don't put your silly belief in my mouth, period.

Please back on topic and let forget about separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I put anything in your mouth....

This is from Jiro's link

The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."
Click to expand...

But yes....let's get back to topic. Not surprising that North Carolina voted this way.
 
TXgolfer said:
I don't believe I put anything in your mouth....

This is from Jiro's link

But yes....let's get back to topic. Not surprising that North Carolina voted this way.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's correct about not total separation, just some part and I think it is good thing to keep government away from religion, especially try to adopt the regulation to restrict the preach or something.

Of course, North Carolina - not surprised because I think it will pass without doubt, hence, there are still some options in other state.
 
TXgolfer said:
I don't believe I put anything in your mouth....

This is from Jiro's link



But yes....let's get back to topic. Not surprising that North Carolina voted this way.
Click to expand...

still... :ty: for proving me right. you might want to check bunch of legal cases that had separation of church and state in mind. and plus government will have to intervene if religious group is going too far like Branch Davidian and Heaven's Gate.

a tip for you - if you're going to say get back on topic... then try not to have the last off-topic word in.

I too am not surprised that North Carolina voted this archaic constitutional amendment and it's just a matter of time till it's ruled unconstitutional. I imagine it will happen quite soon.
 
Jiro said:
still... :ty: for proving me right. you might want to check bunch of legal cases that had separation of church and state in mind. and a tip for you - if you're going to say get back on topic... then try not to have the last off-topic word in.

I too am not surprised that North Carolina voted this archaic constitutional amendment and it's just a matter of time till it's ruled unconstitutional. I imagine it will happen quite soon.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are claiming to be right about. :lol: The fact that the court has ruled on both sides of religious issues proves that matters are at the court's discretion and that the court is not bound by a strict separation of the 2.
 
Back
Top