Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

[Plainsman]

H.R. 2679, Veterans' Memorials, BoyScouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)

2679

Please contact your Senators about this to bring it to a vote.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Link doesn't work Eric.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Thanks Pointer, it's working now.

 

[PW2]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

We've had a Republican controlled Congress since 1994. Haven't they done enough harm already?

Let's work on something important, like maybe finding a way out of Iraq!

 

[jtexas]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

it protects governments against monetary awards for plaintiffs who sue (and win) for "injuries" caused by religious words and/or images on federal buildings, veterans memorials, currency, pledge of allegiance, boy scout, or military facilities.

it's a start.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

We've had a Republican controlled Congress since 1994. Haven't they done enough harm already?

Let's work on something important, like maybe finding a way out of Iraq!

Wow, you don't want the the final resting places of our fallen troops protected? And you don't like the boy scouts? Maybe the word Religious threw you off about the whole picture of the legistlaion?

 

[jtexas]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

...
Let's work on something important, like maybe finding a way out of Iraq!
...

This is not a rhetorical question: can the legislative branch control troop movements?

FYI for those who haven't read or didn't understand the bill: according to my inexpert analysis, this proposed legislation has actual substance; it would have a favorable economic impact on government spending. If we want to slam congress I bet we can find some real boondoggles without all that much effort.

 

[PW2]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

We've had a Republican controlled Congress since 1994. Haven't they done enough harm already?

Let's work on something important, like maybe finding a way out of Iraq!

Wow, you don't want the the final resting places of our fallen troops protected? And you don't like the boy scouts? Maybe the word Religious threw you off about the whole picture of the legistlaion?

I have faith in the Constitution, and separation of the judicial branch from the legislative and executive branches of government.

I am against incursions by one branch to limit the constitutional power of another through legislation. I assume our court system will come up with reasonable, rational decisions. They don't always, I know, but then I also assume the executive and legislative will also come up with rational decisions and laws, etc. and they too sometimes disappoint.

All in all, it is better to maintain the separation and balance of power that the framers intended, however imperfect it may be, than to mess it up completely in trying to "fix" it.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Funny PW2 you didn't ask that we find a way to WIN in Iraq.

 

[PW2]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Win in Iraq?

You have to keep the goals within the realm of the possible, I am afraid.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Like going to the moon, defeating both the axis and the Japaneese military machines at the same time, building a radar invisible jet, or a phone you can take anywhere without wires, or a cure for polio, small pox, etc. How about crossing the Atlantic ocean in a plane?

Giving up without trying is slowly becoming an American hallmark. Help be part of the solution. Failure should never be an option. Just remember quitters never won anything. I find it interesting how those who never try to accomplish anything almost never do.


With this said, this type of legislation won't be good for the coffers of the ACLU.

 

[QC]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

this type of legislation won't be good for the coffers of the ACLU.

Dang it all. I just knew there was a downside . . .

 

[jtexas]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Figure out a way to win in Iraq?

We've already won - already declared victory. Now we're just assisting in an internal matter of a foreign country at the request of the democratically elected government; and, as our commander in chief says, we'll stay only as long as they want us.

But I don't understand what that has to do with the proposed legislation that is the subject of this thread.

 

[PW2]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Figure out a way to win in Iraq?

We've already won - already declared victory. Now we're just assisting in an internal matter of a foreign country at the request of the democratically elected government; and, as our commander in chief says, we'll stay only as long as they want us.

But I don't understand what that has to do with the proposed legislation that is the subject of this thread.

I forgot. It depends on how you define victory for sure.

I am all for winning, as long as you call what we have accomplished so far as a win.

As far as the original thread, so why are you all out to attack the constitution and what the framers intended?

You seem to want to legislate a decision on an issue before even hearing the relevant evidence. That cannot be a good thing.

 

[jtexas]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

"attack the constitution"?
There are, what, twenty-seven amendments to the constitution? The bill of rights was passed concurrently, that leaves 17. Was that seventeen attacks on the constitution? Clearly it wasn't perfect before now...or wasn't finished...how sure can you be that it is perfect now?

In fact, Article V of the constitution itself invites "attacks".

"what the framers intended"
By what right would you claim to be the ultimate arbiter of "what the framers intended"? Do you have some secret heretofor undisclosed knowlege that gives you exclusive insight into "what the framers intended?"

[That's just my clever (read "smarta55") way of saying I respect your opinion and expect the same from you.]

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

The sad part is that we have to add laws to put teeth into what the framers really meant PW2. There are some who enjoy rewriting history and panderaing to lunatic judges like say Alcie Hastings.

By the tenor of your last post I guess someone important appointed you the arbitor of the framers intentions? Your statement seems definitive. They must have been pretty stupid not to have included specific language outlining how important it is to be outwardly hostile to religions that helped form the backbone of this country and their practices. As this is a religious holiday I guess there are some leftists looking to have it removed from the calendar. WINTER HOLIDAY ANYONE? Does that offend anyone?

The sad part is that JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEFS formed and influenced this country and are, at the very least historically important to sustain their place in historical markers and seals. It is sad that something even alluding to a higher being makes some folks so uncomfortable they can't finish their day. See the LA seal issue.

Sad, Sad, Sad.

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

We've had a Republican controlled Congress since 1994. Haven't they done enough harm already?

Let's work on something important, like maybe finding a way out of Iraq!

Wow, you don't want the the final resting places of our fallen troops protected? And you don't like the boy scouts? Maybe the word Religious threw you off about the whole picture of the legistlaion?

I have faith in the Constitution, and separation of the judicial branch from the legislative and executive branches of government.

I am against incursions by one branch to limit the constitutional power of another through legislation. I assume our court system will come up with reasonable, rational decisions. They don't always, I know, but then I also assume the executive and legislative will also come up with rational decisions and laws, etc. and they too sometimes disappoint.

All in all, it is better to maintain the separation and balance of power that the framers intended, however imperfect it may be, than to mess it up completely in trying to "fix" it.

PW
You and I agree most of the time, but here I respectfully think you are so far off base. I did not review the proposed legislation, because I am a defeatist, I believe, no am afraid that narrow minded, self-interested idiots will prevail.

The court system has shown time and again that it will trample the rights and will of the masses in a mis-guided attempt at protecting the "rights" of the few.

People (especially the judges) need to understand that the separation of church and state so fondly quoted by the athiest and selfish narcissitic morons is not an abolishment of God from our government, it is a prohibition of the government to endorse, impose or establish on religion. It is and always was intended to establish FREEDOM to practice whatever religion you wished, if that was Witnessing, Catholicism, Baptist, Mormon, whatever, you were to be allowed, not prohibitied. So on second thought, let's enforce the separation thought.

Unfortunately it seems that the only way to enforce that intent of the framers is to actually enact more legislation.

 

[PW2]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

The only way to maintain true religious freedom is to keep the government from endorsing one brand over another.

There are ample opportunities, and yes even gov't support (through tax exempt status) to practice whatever religion you wish, be it Christian, or Buhdism, or Wiccan, or whatever, and be free to do it. Once the gov't officially sanctions one brand, it makes it more difficult to disagree with the gov't.

We have ample laws to regulate society friendly behavior without the gov't posting some tablet somewhere in some gov't building telling me which god I need to believe in, as if it is any of their business which god I believe in, as long as I follow the laws.

 

[QC]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

The Government protects Native American religious sites and practices. Why is this OK? Is this "telling (you) which god (you) need to believe in"? Is this the Government "endorsing one brand over another"?

FWIW, this just occurred to me this morning. I am sure it is not what I think it is, or wait, maybe it is . . .

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 1996 24 May
Executive Order 13007--Indian Sacred Sites

May 24, 1996
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, in furtherance of Federal treaties, and in order to protect and preserve Indian religious practices, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Accommodation of Sacred Sites.

(a) In managing Federal lands, each executive branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility for the management of Federal lands shall, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, (1) accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and (2) avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Where appropriate, agencies shall maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.

 

[technostingray]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

There are only two rules on my boat, no sand and no drowning. Listed in priority order.

QC, out of respect to your college professor mother and my mother the english teacher would you please make you signature read - There are only two rules on my boat, no sand and no drowning. Listed in order of priority.
That has to be a split infinitive or dangling modifier or something.
Back to the regular scheduled ????????