Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: churchillbuff; P-Marlowe; jude24; PatrickHenry; Right Wing Professor; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
Hmmmmm......

So, religious influences are not necessarily an "establishment of religion."

Seems like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

50 posted on 12/20/2005 3:06:00 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xzins

" So, religious influences are not necessarily an "establishment of religion."

Nope!

And 'established' religion would be when the government declares 'All citizens must practice the Muslim faith and no other religion is allowed."

Or how about Parliament 'establishing' a religion by enacting a law that 'requires' you to practice their 'declared' faith?



Sound familiar?


Since the First Ammendment expressly FORBIDS Congress from doing this, then 'religious influences' in a government building does not 'establish' a religion.

And don't forget the second part of the First Ammendment that says 'or prohibit the free exercise thereof'.

That part is NOT limited to the 'public' only.


53 posted on 12/20/2005 3:12:42 PM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: xzins

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!


97 posted on 12/21/2005 2:34:04 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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