Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Election 2012
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1826573" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>First, Wikipedia is not a valid source. It is openly edited by many uneducated people, and many of the sources cited across the site tend to be non-existent or misused.</p><p></p><p>I am well aware of the wording of the First Amendment, as well as the famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that they would not be treated negatively simply because another religious organization had a strong majority in government at the time with a very public near-theocratic agenda.</p><p></p><p>The Lemon test cited is only seen by the SCOTUS as a mere utility test, and not really a true test of Constitutionality. Just because a test is widely cited does not mean that it was a real factor in the decision. In fact, in 1993 it gave us this great passage from Justice Scalia:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>(I love Supreme Court humor, by the way. Although, there is a lot better humor in oral argument transcripts. <a href="http://commlawreview.org/Archives/CLRv10i2/The%20Function%20of%20Laughter%20at%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20CLR%20v10i2.pdf" target="_blank">For example</a>)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As to your "refresh[ed]" post, what is "moral" to one religious group may be "immoral" to another. So who is to define the measure of morality? Just because a specific group says that something is right or wrong does not mean that it is right or wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1826573, member: 5151"] First, Wikipedia is not a valid source. It is openly edited by many uneducated people, and many of the sources cited across the site tend to be non-existent or misused. I am well aware of the wording of the First Amendment, as well as the famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that they would not be treated negatively simply because another religious organization had a strong majority in government at the time with a very public near-theocratic agenda. The Lemon test cited is only seen by the SCOTUS as a mere utility test, and not really a true test of Constitutionality. Just because a test is widely cited does not mean that it was a real factor in the decision. In fact, in 1993 it gave us this great passage from Justice Scalia: (I love Supreme Court humor, by the way. Although, there is a lot better humor in oral argument transcripts. [URL="http://commlawreview.org/Archives/CLRv10i2/The%20Function%20of%20Laughter%20at%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20CLR%20v10i2.pdf"]For example[/URL]) As to your "refresh[ed]" post, what is "moral" to one religious group may be "immoral" to another. So who is to define the measure of morality? Just because a specific group says that something is right or wrong does not mean that it is right or wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Election 2012
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom