I'm sorry, but the first amendment doesn't say that I am free to excersise my religion except when I work for the government.
That is a really bad Strawman fallacy you have created, I never made such a claim. It does mean you cannot exercise your religion while you are supposed to be working for the government, ie as an official capacity, especially when that exercise is extended to those outside of yourself.
You mean you were saying they could not exercise their religion contantly at work when you said "I'm sorry, but the first amendment doesn't say that I am free to excersise my religion except when I work for the government." It seemed to state that anyone working for the government could not exercise their right of religion.
That's what I'm saying. And I'm saying that, if my free expression of my religion includes posting the Ten Commandments in my courtroom or erecting a Nativity on the City Hall grounds, then (constitutionally) congress can do nothing to stop me.
And you are wrong. You do not have the right to decorate the public offices or buildings to make you feel better about your religious beliefs. Posting of either is not part of ANY personal religious observence. You cannot during the course of your official function as a government employee promote one religion or religious belief over another. You can do wahtever you wish religiously during work as long as you do not work for the government, and your employer will allow it. :mrgreen:
I'm sorry, but the first amendment doesn't say that I am free to excersise my religion except when I work for the government.
Yes, it does. If you are acting in the capacity of an agent of the governmnet, ie on the job, you cannot exercise any support of a religion. The USSC has already ruled on this and your personal opinion does NOT hold any relationship to whether it is or is not constitutional, but the ruling of the USSC is by definition the word on constitutionality. An employee may exercise their religious beliefs to themselves and in a manner that does not impart any potential support of a religion by the governement while they are on duty in a public/government building. When they are not on duty in that location they are free to exercise any legal religious rituals or displays they wish.
I t depends on the crowd. If they are fairly progressive and I believe they would understand my views then I would stay in the room and simply not hold hands or participate in saying grace. If the crowd is not as receptive (I had a client who was a pastor once and had dinner at his house) then I go along with it so as not to disrespect their household. Now, for your comment about god is always there for me...you're exactly the problem. How would you feel if you were constantly barraged by 'Alah is always there for you' despite the fact that you do not subscribe to that religion. How about if your son or daughter marries a muslim, hindu, etc. and they have a religious ceremony in their custom? Would you be a disrespectful to others beliefs to run around saying "Jesus loves you!" Enjoy your religion. Have a blast. But try to keep it the frick out of my life.
easy there easy, don't get to worked up and blow a head gasket, as you see there was a :jester: with that. may God bless you
You're forgetting that as a judge the courtroom does not belong to you and as the Mayor the city hall grounds do not belong to you. Not so much as you sit at your desk at work (Wrong, it is not your desk. It is your employers desk and they let you sit there). The courtroom and the city hall grounds belong to the citizens and in case you live under a rock that includes many different races, creeds, religions, etc. What your saying is equivalent to government promotion of one religion over another by the mere fact that, as a gov't employee, you are an extension of the gov't and are subject to the same rules. As a gov't employee you may feel free to place your nativity scene in your own front yard.
You Jesus Chrispies just can't help yourself can you? For a religion that denounces selfishness and espouses humility a lot of you are usually pretty self-righteous and down right nasty and disrespectful about these things.
No, it doesn't. Take a look at the first amendment again: Please, point to the words, "Except when working for the government" Nope, sorry I still don't see it. Look at it again. (I'll type it slow, in case you don't read too fast) So, the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled means that they are never wrong? (Be careful about your answer before this turns into a discussion about Dred Scott)
Once again, show me in the Constitution where it says that congress can prevent your free excersise of religion when at your government workplace.
The government can only act through human beings - employees and elected officials. The actions of an employee on duty are the actions of the government. The actions of a government employee on his own time are his own actions. How does the phrase "Congress shall make no law" apply? Every activity of the government is funded by a law that is passed by Congress, the federal budget. The employee's pay is funded by those laws. The office space, equipment, furniture, everything required to do the job is funded by those laws. Therefore, a person functioning as an agent of the government cannot impose his or her religious beliefs on others when on duty. The other side of the coin - the free exercise clause - refers to individual citizens. The Constitution does not protect the government, the Constitution protects the citizens from government intrusion. Government employees, like everyone else, are protected in their personal capacities, but that does not extend to their actions as agents of the government.
He was joking around both times. And the Jesus Chrispies thing is pretty nasty and disrespectful as well....
I do not need to do so as I have read the USSC rulings on the matter, which you seem to try to happily ignore as being the defining determination of what is and is not Contistutional. Dio you really want me to post the USSC rulings for you? Maybe if I type slowly enough and use smaller word you may understand. Cliff does not decide what the Constitution means because the Constitution says that power is solely given to the USSC. The USSC rulings clearly say government employees cannot decorate public buildings to suit their religious views. Thus, you are spitting into the wind on this one ... again. They are by definition right UNTIL there is a change either by legislation, later ruling, or both. Dredd Scott in 1857 was superseded by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865, which abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which extended citizenship regardless of race.
