Observance is not Establishment

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well, it's happened yet again. No, you haven't squandered a perfectly good hour listening to Car Talk, which is anything but squandering, you've been liberalized. We've got the Association of Crazed Liberals United (ACLU) and their liberal consorts in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches doing all they can to corrupt the Constitution. That is why there are so many restrictions on Christian faith. The ACLU, the hypocrites in Congress, the judges overstepping their authority and the Moronic Idiot in Chief care nothing about the Constitution or their oath or what's right. They only care about their agendas, one of which is to erode the Constitution to the point they can ignore it claiming it's no longer relevant. They are doing this now with Article One and Christians among other things.

It isn't that they don't know what they are doing. It isn't that they think they are doing the right thing. They know exactly what they are doing and what they are doing violates the Constitution. The founding fathers knew the problems and issues and conflicts caused by an established religion, in their case The Church of England. They did not want to repeat that with The Church of the Americas or any other church. To keep that from happening they included the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That means there is not and never will be a single religion sanctioned by the government. That's at least what it's supposed to mean. Where it's actually going will remain the subject for another time. It really couldn't be any clearer or simpler if it tried and yet the ACLU and our leaders act as if it's complex beyond comprehension.

…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech. Nothing in there says you can't say a prayer before school or a football game or a meeting of a fraternal organization or any other place or time. Want to say a prayer in school? There shall be no law prohibiting it. Period. End of sentence. Plain as can be. Want to say it out loud? Freedom of speech. That's speech. Period. End of sentence. Plain as can be. Those are all observances of religion. They are acts and actions of religious observance by people. They are not in any way, shape or form the establishing of religion.

Those in a small minority don't like or want our Constitution. They are working to abolish it. This is one of their targets. They are doing a good job of deflecting and redirecting. They very well may succeed. Like most things they do they are doing it dishonestly and against the law of the Constitution.
 
Last edited:

Letzboogie

Not a Member
Muslim-in Chief? Wow, I haven't heard hate speech that good since I was laid over one night in Selma back in the 60's!
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Muslim-in Chief? Wow, I haven't heard hate speech that good since I was laid over one night in Selma back in the 60's!


Then you must have missed this one. This is hate speech on steroids!!


"You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"

Those were the words of Minister King Samir Shabazz, also known as Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party's Philadelphia leader.




Read more: 'Want freedom? Kill some crackers!' 'Want freedom? Kill some crackers!'

'Want freedom? Kill some crackers!'
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I'm sorry but a "supposed" Constitutional scholar and a "supposed" Christian would not accept such a blatant abuse of the Constitution nor would they accept one standard for Christians and another for everyone else. That's not hate speech. That's contempt. That's saying what many know but won't say. It may be a lot of things but that's not hate speech. Hate speech would be much more harsh.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
So Leo, I am a bit puzzled by this because I see you are not being coherent in what you are saying - maybe it is the wind here.

See here is the problem, as different Christians we all pray differently with different beliefs. Even though we are all Christians, there is a problem with some who are very uncomfortable with their peers praying and expecting others to pray with them. Whether or not it is allowed or there is some sort of double standard with the government, there is within the religion and many times you have people demanding others think their way and sometimes it gets out of hand. THIS happens in school and in work places.

The other thing that kind of works against the religion, are the idiots and zealots in the religion - like the idiot in florida who burned a Koran and those who are screaming that Sharia law is taking over everything.

The ACLU did not cause this problem, a lot of people who can't accept others for what they practice did. THIS includes those WASP who looked down at Catholics, those Christians who had unwritten rules about Jews and now those who are fighting Islam again.

IF you want someone to blame, look at those who demand people to accept something that they don't believe in.
 

blackpup

Veteran Expediter
Muslim-in Chief? Wow, I haven't heard hate speech that good since I was laid over one night in Selma back in the 60's!

Who said anything about a Muslim-in Chief ? All I saw in the previous post #1 was a reference to the mental capacities of the President.

jimmy
 
Last edited:

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I originally did, forgetting how sensitive liberals are. I suppose it would have been more accurate for me to say our non-Christian in Chief since his actions speak louder than his words.
 

Letzboogie

Not a Member
I originally did, forgetting how sensitive liberals are. I suppose it would have been more accurate for me to say our non-Christian in Chief since his actions speak louder than his words.


How sensitive liberals are? After reading post # 1 in this thread you seem pretty sensitive. Should I assume you are a liberal?
 

Letzboogie

Not a Member
I'm sorry but a "supposed" Constitutional scholar and a "supposed" Christian would not accept such a blatant abuse of the Constitution nor would they accept one standard for Christians and another for everyone else.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't God have one standard for Christians and another for everyone else? Acts 16:31
 
Last edited:
Top