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

To: kattracks; Dataman; rhema
I have a serious question about this from the article:

...the monument's placement violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine

Seriously, what Constitution are they talking about? What ban? TELL me they DON'T mean the Constitution of the United States. TELL me that they DON'T mean the prohibition of CONGRESS (not the court) of enacting any LAW (not allowing a monument) respecting an establishment of religion NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

And TELL me that, if this objective article DID mean something, the public would discredit this news source into everlasting obscurity.

Dan

15 posted on 08/22/2003 5:21:47 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: BibChr
Seriously, what Constitution are they talking about? What ban? TELL me they DON'T mean the Constitution of the United States. TELL me that they DON'T mean the prohibition of CONGRESS (not the court) of enacting any LAW (not allowing a monument) respecting an establishment of religion NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

The Constitution of the Dumbed-down Liberals of America, the 115th amendment which states any public mention or display of any Christian belief or symbol is more dangerous than a nuke attack from a rogue Islamic group and must be stopped with taxpayer funding.

217 posted on 08/22/2003 1:06:52 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | 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