DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**RalfDweflywex** · 10-24-2005, 10:08 PM

Absolutely incorrect ... and a neophyte's mistake.

What's in an insult?
A slander by any other word,
Would still smell foul.
And Mad_Michael is many things called,
But still retains that dear condescention,
That annoys fools, jesters and trolls.

Read the First Amendement's religion clause again -- this time with correct application of the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary -- and you should easily see, I hope, that the word "establishment" is a noun, not a verb.

Bemused giggles.

The Constitution is a technical political-legal document. Try checking out the specific technical political-legal meaning of the word - specifically in its 18th century context when the word was in current usage.

(Hint: The Pilgrims on the Mayflower came to the New World in specfic objection to the establishment of the Church in England)

Simply follow the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary, and the Constitution reveals itself without any need to ideologically exit the Constitution for "reference" ... and this was just how the writers as a community group intended.

Perhaps the 'framers' under-estimated the nature of English language to 'transform' itself over the centuries?

We can't have the SCOTUS quibbling over its imagination of what is "common interpretation" ... as such is subject to preconceived ideological filtering.

Oh gosh! The thought of "preconceived ideological filtering" in the appointment of a judge to the Supreme Court? Never!

And if Manny Moron says that having a group conversation with God is a "religious" practice just because he thinks so, that's no reason to override a recent unanimous decision by a recent modern council of duly authorized representatives of every religion in the world, a unanimous decision that reference to God is not indicative of a philosophy being a religion.

God - in the singular and capitalised form - indicates only one of three (or one in the same) monotheist religions - known euphemistically as "of the book" (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

Having prayer sessions that are not specifically at the right time of the day (and bums-up and facing Mecca), that rules out one of them, so you are specifically identifying the Judeo-Christian God and/or the Judeo-Christian religious 'faction' with any offical prayers. This moves specifically towards 'establishment'.

The SCOTUS, as does the Constitution, must allow for changing times and stay current in referential vocabulary translations, and not merely appeal to archaic errors of perception that are, thus, no longer applicable when revealed or that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

So the Constitution is only a 'guideline'???

And prayer looks like it does everywhere because of the way 'men are made and God is, whether the prayer is being performed within a religious ceremony or not, so a "prayer session", by descriptive nature, can only be "religious" if performed in association with religious articles.

Do you pray 'bums-up' and facing Mecca?

Keep in mind that prayer is the function of "speaking" to God, just like meditation is the function of "listening" to God.

Bemused giggles. I'll try to keep this in mind.

Your libertarian bias is obvious here in your implied blind worship of private enterprise that causes you to miss the clear text of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to coin money.

My "implied blind worship of private enterprise"... that one's rich. I'm sure there are a few here that might howl upon reading that one!

Whether the fed farms out the process to a private company is absolutely irrelevant.

Oh the irony... the irony of it all.

That private company does not have the right to "coin" money, nor does it have any say in what is inscribed on our money.

They have no more 'right' to coin money than Coca-cola has a right to sell soft drinks.

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to create statutes that describe what is to be on the face of each piece of money.

Thus the fed itself authorizes what is to be printed on the money, not some private company, and so the fed alone is responsible for our money's depiction.

Nowadays, yes.

So the appearance of God on our money is not because some private company made that decision, a private company being "separate" from the federal government -- that's simply preposterous .

You might want to review the history of the matter before you preposterate at such length. Things have not always been so nice and neat.

Was there ever any.

No, none at all... now that you mention it.

10-24-2005, 10:08 PM	#9
RalfDweflywex Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 578 Senior Member	Absolutely incorrect ... and a neophyte's mistake. What's in an insult? A slander by any other word, Would still smell foul. And Mad_Michael is many things called, But still retains that dear condescention, That annoys fools, jesters and trolls. Read the First Amendement's religion clause again -- this time with correct application of the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary -- and you should easily see, I hope, that the word "establishment" is a noun, not a verb. Bemused giggles. The Constitution is a technical political-legal document. Try checking out the specific technical political-legal meaning of the word - specifically in its 18th century context when the word was in current usage. (Hint: The Pilgrims on the Mayflower came to the New World in specfic objection to the establishment of the Church in England) Simply follow the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary, and the Constitution reveals itself without any need to ideologically exit the Constitution for "reference" ... and this was just how the writers as a community group intended. Perhaps the 'framers' under-estimated the nature of English language to 'transform' itself over the centuries? We can't have the SCOTUS quibbling over its imagination of what is "common interpretation" ... as such is subject to preconceived ideological filtering. Oh gosh! The thought of "preconceived ideological filtering" in the appointment of a judge to the Supreme Court? Never! And if Manny Moron says that having a group conversation with God is a "religious" practice just because he thinks so, that's no reason to override a recent unanimous decision by a recent modern council of duly authorized representatives of every religion in the world, a unanimous decision that reference to God is not indicative of a philosophy being a religion. God - in the singular and capitalised form - indicates only one of three (or one in the same) monotheist religions - known euphemistically as "of the book" (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Having prayer sessions that are not specifically at the right time of the day (and bums-up and facing Mecca), that rules out one of them, so you are specifically identifying the Judeo-Christian God and/or the Judeo-Christian religious 'faction' with any offical prayers. This moves specifically towards 'establishment'. The SCOTUS, as does the Constitution, must allow for changing times and stay current in referential vocabulary translations, and not merely appeal to archaic errors of perception that are, thus, no longer applicable when revealed or that appeal to the lowest common denominator. So the Constitution is only a 'guideline'??? And prayer looks like it does everywhere because of the way 'men are made and God is, whether the prayer is being performed within a religious ceremony or not, so a "prayer session", by descriptive nature, can only be "religious" if performed in association with religious articles. Do you pray 'bums-up' and facing Mecca? Keep in mind that prayer is the function of "speaking" to God, just like meditation is the function of "listening" to God. Bemused giggles. I'll try to keep this in mind. Your libertarian bias is obvious here in your implied blind worship of private enterprise that causes you to miss the clear text of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to coin money. My "implied blind worship of private enterprise"... that one's rich. I'm sure there are a few here that might howl upon reading that one! Whether the fed farms out the process to a private company is absolutely irrelevant. Oh the irony... the irony of it all. That private company does not have the right to "coin" money, nor does it have any say in what is inscribed on our money. They have no more 'right' to coin money than Coca-cola has a right to sell soft drinks. The Constitution authorizes the federal government to create statutes that describe what is to be on the face of each piece of money. Thus the fed itself authorizes what is to be printed on the money, not some private company, and so the fed alone is responsible for our money's depiction. Nowadays, yes. So the appearance of God on our money is not because some private company made that decision, a private company being "separate" from the federal government -- that's simply preposterous . You might want to review the history of the matter before you preposterate at such length. Things have not always been so nice and neat. Was there ever any. No, none at all... now that you mention it.
	Quote