This infuriates me

The first line of your post was....

I can't believe some of the hypocrites on this board lately....

Granted you didn't say everyone was a hypocrite, but to be followed by your 'most, if not all' statement it got blended together.

IMO, in this day and age where we try to be considerate and acknowledge that not everyone is like us, it's wrong to assume everyone had a religious ceremony because you did and it's insulting to accuse people of going against their beliefs because they wanted pretty pictures.

You made some excellent points, and I agree. I am glad I started it.

I just wish people knew how to argue 'correctly'. There is a difference between disagreeing and being completely insulting!

Cool, the next meeting of the LIWeddings Debate Team will be Monday at 10AM.

Geesh. I hope nothing I said was offensive to anyone. It was certainly not my intention. I just wanted to point out some things.

I was not offended by anything anyone said either. Except being labeled a hypocrite. You can say it wasn't pointed at anyone in particular and that may be so, but it sure as heck described me, seeing as I am athiest but was married in a Catholic church. I responded to that only because I wanted to show why it is wrong to assume that people are hyprocrites when you don't know the entire situation.

Discussion is good. We live in a society that promotes is - how can that be bad?

Just to clarify...'Under God' was not original to the Pledge of Allegiance (written in 1892) - it was added in 1954, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, Congress added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.

'In God We Trust' was also NOT original to our currency - on US coins did not begin until 1908, was not made an official motto of the United States until 1956, and the motto did not appear on paper money until 1957.

There are no references to deity in the Declaration or the Constitution.

See, not all lawyers are argumentative, irrational, and unable to conduct themselves in a calm manner when debating an issue.

sorry need to interject here.....the word God is in the Dec of Independence, as well as the term Creator:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

the Declaration of Independence (while an important document)...is not our law...the Constitution is...

and Thomas Jefferson who wrote it had no religious affiliation...



as for the lawsuit...THIS IS NOT ABOUT MONEY, but protecting rights...would you look at the Brown v Board of Ed case in KS and say that was out of control, b/c someone SUED for their RIGHT for equal education? what about Tinker vs Des Moines to protect their RIGHT to freedom of speech...should I keep going? Miranda vs Arizona? Mapp vs Ohio? Engel vs Vitale? Escobedo vs. Illinois?

I could go on and on...

I am a Roman Catholic and if I want to put a big huge cross on my front lawn and it offends people, then I am legally entitled to do so and there is no legal remedy.

But any property that is owned by the government can not. There are cases like this all over the country and have been for at least a few decades. Schools and courthouses have been ordered to remove crosses and anything with the Ten Commandments on it. The Supreme Court says that the First Amendment prohibits goverment agencies (which I think the Port Authority is since Port Authorities are usually state or locally run otherwise they would be called the Joe Schmo Port Authority). So if it is owned by the state or municipality, then the cross is unconsititional.

I have to believe that whoever brought this lawsuit believes that they are protecting their Constitutional rights. And religion aside, we all have that right and, in my opinion, duty.

The thing is, Yabbobay, is that there was a time when people thought the Brown v Board of Ed case was rediculous. There was a time when the majority (supporting the BoE) thought they were being infringed upon by the minority (Brown and all she represented) and that Brown didn't have the right to sue.

So in due time people will see the points being made by you and Smooch and others in this very thread as being of sound reason and important in the preserverance of our nation and what we stand for.

very true cp...

also just found this fact...thought it was interesting...

the Declaration of Independence cannot be displayed in public schools (in the 5th US district)

I just wanted to say that what Tracy has taken the time to think out and share with us was awesome!

I feel the exact same way for the children.

Well written words and so thought out! Go Tracy!

Word for word taken from The Constitution of the United States of America here is Article I:

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In the very first sentence it clearly states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Someone wants a cross to freely exercise their religion? The Constitution says it's okay.

The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the fact that the government may also not endorse any religion either. By placing a religious figure on any land owned by any government or quasi-governmental agency, that has the force and affect of an endorsement of that religion. It also means that the government cannot allow some people to freely exercise their religion on the government's land if it does not represent the religion of everyone. Again, it's seen as an endorsement.

Some people may not agree with that, and that's their right, but the fact is, the law is the law, and we can't simply pick the ones that we like to abide by - including the government.

I'm sorry...I just had to. This thread just keeps going and going....