It’s common sense that an amendment like that doesn’t advocate the government to take sides on religious belief. Nor would such people likely want a government that does so.
Oh wait, common sense is lacking here.
The law has little to do with common sense. And the Amendment does not speak to "religious belief". You added a word there and substituted "religious" for "religion" which have different definitions, by the way.
Many secular viewpoints made into laws are also viewpoints shared with religions. Does RA's think such laws should be voided...because they do support viewpoints of religions ?
The law has little to do with common sense. And the Amendment does not speak to "religious belief". You added a word there and substituted "religious" for "religion" which have different definitions, by the way.
Many secular viewpoints made into laws are also viewpoints shared with religions. Does RA's think such laws should be voided...because they do support viewpoints of religions ?
Depends if they serve a secular purpose, like the laws against murder for example. It goes without saying why society would need such a law, and that need is independent of religious belief. It may match up with “thou shalt not kill” but that’s more coincidental, since such laws have existed in pre-Christian societies.
Depends if they serve a secular purpose, like the laws against murder for example. It goes without saying why society would need such a law, and that need is independent of religious belief. It may match up with “thou shalt not kill” but that’s more coincidental, since such laws have existed in pre-Christian societies.
Its an interesting topic. However beyond the scope of this thread. PM me to continue.
I would suggest getting back to the original subject matter of the thread.
But it was there,.... and they brought its use back again.
And no matter how much you're trying to spin separation of Church and State, not one Congress has seen the need to remove it. Even when the moved-further-left Dems were in control of Congress and the White House.
Like I said, I’m not arguing here in this thread further. But I’m really not interested in removing it to from our money just to be clear. I’m neutral on if it should be there.
Learn the rules of your BOE before you go to the meeting--they have rules.
Some have a limit, some do not. They always say to sit down because you reached your limit if they actually have a time limit or not. I talk and talk and they say "3 min is up" I tell them "there is no limit" and continue
You know permission was not needed ? My recommendation to folks wanting to protest: never give them foreknowledge that you will protest...they'll scratch their heads watching you.
