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

To: Skooz
Absolutely not. If someone posts a calendar on public property, is that the law of the land?

A calender does not represent laws handed down by God as believed in certain religions. Apples and Oranges.

I am sticking to a strict interpretation of the First Amendment here.

I too believe in the original intent of the passage in the 1st - which was to ensure America would not become a Theocracy and have a national religion like England.

What I ask is if the words "Thall Shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is written on a tablet in a COURT HOUSE(that's the distinction), does that not imply that taking the name of the Lord in vain is a crime, punishable by the court?

84 posted on 11/19/2002 9:27:50 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: FreeTally
What I ask is if the words "Thall Shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is written on a tablet in a COURT HOUSE(that's the distinction), does that not imply that taking the name of the Lord in vain is a crime, punishable by the court?

ONLY if it is codified into law. ONLY if it is in the law books rather than hanging on a wall.

88 posted on 11/19/2002 9:30:52 AM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

To: FreeTally
We have Civil Laws!! Think!!
105 posted on 11/19/2002 9:39:15 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

To: FreeTally
What I ask is if the words "Thall Shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is written on a tablet in a COURT HOUSE(that's the distinction), does that not imply that taking the name of the Lord in vain is a crime, punishable by the court?

Crimes are defined by Legislatures, not by public displays in courthouses. Do you really think that if the words, or even the original document containing the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident; That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." were displayed in a COURT HOUSE, that such a display would imply that disavowing those self-evident truths would be a crime, punishable by the court? Get a grip.

Cordially,

150 posted on 11/19/2002 10:04:30 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

To: FreeTally
I too believe in the original intent of the passage in the 1st - which was to ensure America would not become a Theocracy and have a national religion like England.

That's not exactly what the framers had in mind for the religion clauses of the first amendment. True, they didn't want an established national religion, but their primary concern was that federal action not interfere with previously established state religions. Mass. as late as 1832 had a state religious establishment. Hence, the term, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

165 posted on 11/19/2002 10:13:27 AM PST by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

To: FreeTally
What I ask is if the words "Thall Shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is written on a tablet in a COURT HOUSE(that's the distinction), does that not imply that taking the name of the Lord in vain is a crime, punishable by the court?

Of course not, FreeTally. You needn't have this absurd worry - no one is being arrested for such, nor will they be unless the good people of Alabama pass a law regarding such (which they haven't).

480 posted on 11/19/2002 1:24:55 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | 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