No more General Lees

[67Monaco]

Look up H.K. Edgarton and his website http://www.southernheritage411.com/

Separation of church and state is NOWHERE in the US Constitution. Important thing to remember. What it DOES say is that the State shall not establish a State-run religion, like the Church of England.

The US Constitution: http://constitutionus.com/

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

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.

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists:

http://loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Right, Freedom OF religion not Freedom FROM religion.

 

[Ripinator]

It is quite blatantly a symbol of hate. The Dukes of Hazzard version is the sanitized version many know of but the version I know of is completely different from a different decade. When I see it I see George Wallace standing in front of it while denouncing desegregation. I see a KKK member holding it and taunting blacks with it. I see the march in Selma with counter protestors waving the flag in the faces of the marchers. That is my memory of it. That was Southern Pride all right. That was Southern Heritage all right. That was what the powers that be in the south really used it for while the poor white Southern boy thought he was fighting for his state. Nothing against the poor soldier but they were used to preserve the power and wealth of the Southern Plantation owner. What else is new.

There is a country cemetery in Edgefield SC where my father and his ancestors are buried. My great great grandfather and several of his brothers are buried there. Their graves are marked with stones placed there by the Confederate Veterans; the stones indicate their regiment assignments, etc. Not a single one of these men had slaves, so when I last visited there and walked among the graves, I wondered why did these men volunteer to fight? The conclusion I came to is that they were pretty upset about the infringement on the rights of the people in their state of South Carolina by the federal government. I think this was true of the vast majority of men who fought for the Confederacy. Before our educational system became polluted by the progressive left and its revisionist agenda, the cause of the civil war was based on disagreements regarding state's rights. For me, the Stars and Bars is a symbol of pride in my heritage. Your mileage may vary. . .

 

[70bigblockdodge]

That's a sharp knife you are using to split hairs. I take that to mean in layman's terms the govt doesn't tell me which or no religion I follow and a religion cannot demand the govt to follow it/them, they have to petition the govt, like me, to get a law enacted or changed.

 

[Fratzog]

Separation of church and state is NOWHERE in the US Constitution. Important thing to remember. What it DOES say is that the State shall not establish a State-run religion, like the Church of England.

The US Constitution: http://constitutionus.com/

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

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.

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists:

http://loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

The words that you have bolded cleared establish a separation of church and state. Not only that but a freedom FROM religion. What other meaning can you give the first amendment?

 

[Fratzog]

That's a sharp knife you are using to split hairs. I take that to mean in layman's terms the govt doesn't tell me which or no religion I follow and a religion cannot demand the govt to follow it/them, they have to petition the govt, like me, to get a law enacted or changed.

I agree with you. I don't believe the American founding father were into splitting hairs. The understood fully the dangers of non-secular systems of government. Also noteworthy is the U.S. Constutition, Article VI, paragraph 3. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. The "consent of the governed" (mentioned in the Declaration of Independence) is not only a anti-monarchist concept but also an anti-biblical concept.

 

[67Monaco]

The words that you have bolded cleared establish a separation of church and state. Not only that but a freedom FROM religion. What other meaning can you give the first amendment?

It's simple. CONGRESS. it says nothing about states or local government. The first word plainly says CONGRESS. This amendment was aimed clearly at the federal level. They were smart as you have stated. Had they meant for the entirety of the united States to be free from religion they would have stated so.

 

[patrick66]

The words that you have bolded cleared establish a separation of church and state. Not only that but a freedom FROM religion. What other meaning can you give the first amendment?

Where do you see freedom FROM religion??? It says that the State (meaning the Federal Government!) shall not establish a religion, NOR prohibit the free exercise thereof. It in no way says the freedom from religion. Anywhere! It means that the people are free to exercise their right to worship as the wish; and if they don't, they have that right, too. It does NOT give anyone the right to censure the nativity from a city park, or keep a city from having a Christmas parade, or any of that. It also allows a state or city to put up a tablet of the Ten Commandments, as well. The key word in the First Amendment is CONGRESS! It is important to recognize the fact that Federal Government is prohibited from doing certain things BY the Constitution, not cities and individual States!!!

The US flag is going to be the next target of the haters on the Left, bank on it!

 

[polara71]

There is a country cemetery in Edgefield SC where my father and his ancestors are buried. My great great grandfather and several of his brothers are buried there. Their graves are marked with stones placed there by the Confederate Veterans; the stones indicate their regiment assignments, etc. Not a single one of these men had slaves, so when I last visited there and walked among the graves, I wondered why did these men volunteer to fight? The conclusion I came to is that they were pretty upset about the infringement on the rights of the people in their state of South Carolina by the federal government. I think this was true of the vast majority of men who fought for the Confederacy. Before our educational system became polluted by the progressive left and its revisionist agenda, the cause of the civil war was based on disagreements regarding state's rights. For me, the Stars and Bars is a symbol of pride in my heritage. Your mileage may vary. . .

Bingo.......

 

[69CoronetRT]

Where do you see freedom FROM religion??? It says that the State (meaning the Federal Government!) shall not establish a religion, NOR prohibit the free exercise thereof. It in no way says the freedom from religion. Anywhere! It means that the people are free to exercise their right to worship as the wish; and if they don't, they have that right, too. It does NOT give anyone the right to censure the nativity from a city park, or keep a city from having a Christmas parade, or any of that. It also allows a state or city to put up a tablet of the Ten Commandments, as well. The key word in the First Amendment is CONGRESS! It is important to recognize the fact that Federal Government is prohibited from doing certain things BY the Constitution, not cities and individual States!!!

The US flag is going to be the next target of the haters on the Left, bank on it!

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick.....

You know trying to offer truth, logic and historical reference to an emotional debate is fruitless. It only confuses people that haven't done their homework or research on their own. It's far easier to rationalize, justify and inject one's own interpretation than to grasp what core concepts in a document like the Constitution are about.

;)

 

[68plymouth383]

...

 

[70bigblockdodge]

So I have to follow a religion? Wtf

I choose Scientology I always liked star trek.

 

[67Monaco]

No you have the freedom not to believe in anything. But I think many take that as you have the right to never encounter anything religious. It in no way means you have to accept those religious symbols/artifacts as anything other than meaningless symbols/artifacts.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

Sounds to me as if some are ready to crucify me without knowing what I truly believe. If I may borrow a story from a certain book that I cant mention because it might not be PC

 

[Fratzog]

Look up H.K. Edgarton and his website http://www.southernheritage411.com/



Right, Freedom OF religion not Freedom FROM religion.

Wrong...tell that to your Supreme Court.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.




Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.


Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

 

[patrick66]

The courts are wrong in these cases.

Once again, foreigners telling US what is wrong with the US. Take care of your own affairs.

 

[69CoronetRT]

Wrong...tell that to your Supreme Court.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.




Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.


Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Ah yes...the Supreme Court...nine people that are always right.

Plessy Vs Ferguson. 7 to 1 "Separate but equal" upheld as constitutional. Reversed by Brown Vs Board of Education.

Scott Vs Sandford. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court decision, overturned in 2003, that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals.[SUP][1]

Bush Vs. Gore

Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional. This ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court in 1964 in McLaughlin v. Florida and in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.[/SUP]

Questionable judgments:

Roe Vs Wade
Bush Vs. Gore
Griswold Vs Connecticut.

So...you sure you want to hinge your argument on a body that has proven to 'get it wrong' before or is it just more expedient?

 

[69CoronetRT]

The courts are wrong in these cases.

Once again, foreigners telling US what is wrong with the US. Take care of your own affairs.

Meh...we've done the same for years. Lot's of people, foreign and domestic, are misguided.

 

[Fratzog]

The courts are wrong in these cases.

Once again, foreigners telling US what is wrong with the US. Take care of your own affairs.

If not your supreme court who then is the final arbitrator in these matters? Sorry for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[mdh157]

When I read on the net earlier today that Wal-Mart and other retailers were pulling the flag merchandise, I found myself wondering about The Dukes of Hazzard and if it meant that the movie and the TV shows wouldn't be allowed to be shown anymore.

Walmart said they didn't want to sell merchandise that offended anyone. Of course the words "Made in China" don't seem to offend anyone who can't find a job.

This month I am retiring from the military after 27 years. The biggest reason? I find that I can no longer put my life on the line for a country in which most do not appreciate their freedom. It's becoming as if those who fought and died did so in vain, they might as well take the war memorials down. Makes me frigging sick.

I used to be proud, now it's almost an embarrassment........RIP America........

 

[69CoronetRT]

If not your supreme court who then is the final arbitrator in these matters? Sorry for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Obviously, society and culture over time.

What was at one time, perfectly acceptable socially, culturally, politically and legal, changes for better or worse.

250 years from now, what you take as routine and perfectly fine, will be vilified just as we do now with slavery. YOUR actions, and way of 'backward' thinking, will make YOU the evil person as defined by a totally new culture and line of thought.

Laws change over time.

Rights, as defined as coming from nature by the founders, do not.
If you rely on a Government to grant you a right, you accede to a Government the ability to take it away.