Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: airborne502
I don't see that it changes the point.

You totally missed the critical purpose of the statement...

190 posted on 10/23/2005 2:30:45 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies ]


To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Sir Francis Dashwood wrote:

You totally missed the critical purpose of the statement...

Not at all. At #31 you made the critical point:

But since we are all properly obeying * the modern interpretation * of the First Amendment... Good or bad isn't the question. Good, bad, right, wrong, evil, moral: all of these are purely religious. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.
* The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. * (The "modern interpretation.")

Then the counterpoint was made:

" --- The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting the [differing & divisive] establishments of religions.
The religion clauses were designed in significant part to try to temper religious disputes: -- The social dissension that grows out of the fact that people have different religions.
Thus, it is not necessary for governments to 'exorcise all traces', but to just avoid backing specific beliefs, -- those that divide us.

207 posted on 10/23/2005 2:48:43 PM PDT by airborne502
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson