Monotheism

so do you agree it would be unconstitutional to ban monotheism? or are you just saying monotheists are natural law-breakers?

 

I'm saying they could ban the doctrine but not the religions that apply the doctrine under the 1st.

 

so you can ban monotheism, just not the religions that are monotheistic? have you been drinking?

monotheism is a category of religions. how can you ban a category of religions, but not the religions in that category? you're not making any sense.

 

They have banned obscenity. But they still have to look at every obscenity case to see if it might be protected by the 1st.

 

The 1st says "an establishment of religion" not religions or category of religions.

IMO it does not prohibit favoring a category of religions over another category but a distinct flavor of that category over another. IE. Catholic over Presbyterian

 

Monotheism?

 

lemme see if i follow...

i'm assuming your making a parallel betwen "obscenity" and "monotheism" (purely in the abstract) since that's what we're talking about banning.

they still have to look at every obscenity case, which implies they'd have to look at every monotheism case as well.

so are you saying that when they look at a specific monotheism case, they'd have to say it's not bannable because now they're specific to a religion? if so, that's a pretty strange take.

 

a couple of things.

first off, you're reading it as though there's an "a" in there (establishment of "a" religion). without it, we're talking about religion in general.

secondly, even if the wording was "a religion" then you're assuming that the prohibition of "establishing of a religion" is not applicable if you establish more than one religion. it would be like leaving somebody instructions "not to spend a cent on junk food" with the expectation that they'd interpret that as "you can spend money on junk food, so long as you spend more than one cent".

your best argument is going to be focused on the word "establishment".

 

Lets step throught this again.

1. You have agreed that monotheism is not a religion.You have claimed that it is a class of religions. I would say it is a class of classes of religions (Protestant, Non-Protestant, etc).

2. You have argued that the word "God " in the pledge promotes monotheism.

3. The 1st bans the establishment of religion.

4. If monotheism is not a religion how can the 1st ban it?

Lets look at the definition of religion:

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Option 1a would be the closest to applying but b specifies that it has to be institutionalized or personal system which monotheism as a whole is not a system.

Check out option 4!!!!! Man wouldn't that open a huge can of worms. Look out PETA!

 

religion = "vehicles"
monotheism = "wheeled vehicles"
christianity = "automobile"

to rephrase your question:

1. you have agreed that "wheeled vehicles" is not a "vehicle". you have claimed that it is a class of "vehicles".

2. you have argued that the pledge promotes "wheeled vehicles"

3. the 1st bans the establishment of "vehicles"

4. if "wheeled vehicles" is not a "vehicle" how can the 1st ban it?

answer: because banning the larger group (vehicles, or religions) would effectively ban the smaller subgroups (wheeled vehicles, or monotheism).

i would be just as upset if a christian sermon was held at a public school as i would if PETA came to give their spiel.