But Thats None Of My Business

But Thats None Of My Business Meme | THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KEEPING RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN TO KEEP GOVERNME | image tagged in memes,but thats none of my business,kermit the frog | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
9,279 views, 87 upvotes, Made by SpursFanFromAround 23 months ago memesbut thats none of my businesskermit the frog
But Thats None Of My Business memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
15 ups
WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS KERMIT GUY HE'S ACTUALLY READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONSTITUTION | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
11 ups
Picard Wtf Meme | DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA, HOW MANY ACLU LAWYERS TALK LIKE THAT WOULD PUT OUT OF A JOB??? | image tagged in memes,picard wtf | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
10 ups
X All The Y Meme | SPEAK ALL THE TRUTH | image tagged in memes,x all the y | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Preach Kermit preach!
reply
9 ups
AND THEN THEY WERE LIKE "BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS.." | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
"What is this constitution you speak of?"
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
"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."
That is the 1st amendment in its entirety. In addition to forbidding government to establish religion it also forbids government to interfere with "the free exercise" of religion. The interpretation is that the government cannot force someone to do something against their religion. Not by any law or mandate. Therefore based upon the amendment alone the government cannot decide that a Muslim restaurant must serve a Christian pastor a pulled pork sandwich. Nor can it force a Christian band to perform at a gay wedding. Most people have no issue serving diverse people. Some do. If the people who have a problem truly believe that they are being forced to do something that is totally against their religion that would be illegal based upon the bill of rights.
Before anyone jumps down my throat, I am an atheist and have no problem whatsoever with religion or practitioners of religion.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T FORCE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR ACTS ON CITIZENS TOO BAD IT DOESN'T WORK BOTH WAYS | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up, 1 reply
But it does work both ways. Beyond small idiocracies like mentioning God on money the religious cannot dictate governmental action on a federal level. They can try. Hence the many bills proposing reversal of roe v wade or the defense of marriage acts many lawmakers are trying to enact. Trying being the operative word.
The founding fathers were brilliant and recognized their own strong beliefs to possibly be a hindrance to the fair by the people republic for which they were fighting. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of justice and law. They passed civil rights with brown board of Ed. Women's rights,roe v wade. Gay rights,repeal of DOMA. The states have autonomy to pass laws but smart people know to fight back through the justice system that's where the power truly lies. We have a government of checks and balances it does work the vast majority of the time.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The constitution reflects federal policy. The laws I mentioned were enacted by the Supreme Court in response to lower courts and more localized government passing laws later found to be unconstitutional. Segregation anti abortion anti gay laws existed (still do) on a lower level. The states have total autonomy to pass laws. This is to avoid a monarchy or dictatorship. If 45 of 50 states have the same law that doesn't make it federal. In order to preserve rights the people have to LEGALLY challenge laws passed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Even then there is s possibility of reversal ie:prohibition.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
See what I did there?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The problem comes in when you try to define "practicing one's religion". What actions are protected under the First Amendment and what actions aren't protected?
reply
0 ups
The right to have religious beliefs is absolute. The right to act on those beliefs is not. However the government has to have " compelling interest" that forcing a believer to go against their beliefs is necessary and proper. This is easily proven in satanic ritual where human sacrifice might be a part of the belief. Not so much elsewhere. The federal govt will not force the baker or the Muslim butcher to go against their beliefs. The states may provide their own laws prohibiting or permitting those actions. Only if the Supreme Court rules will the question be answered. Even then the states can wiggle the rules.
reply
5 ups
And its nice to see someone else who gets it right. Congrats and thank you.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
This meme sounds like it's in reply to something.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
In a way it is. If you look at my last Picard WTF meme you'll seen a semi heated exchange between me and Tttony and another user...can't remember his name.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Thanks. I just didn't get why the statement would be controversial.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
I'm guessing because anything that slaps the constant narrative in the face of those who are trying to change history, it's controversial. They teach kids in schools that there is such a thing as separation of church and state and there really isn't. Not the way they're being taught.
reply
5 ups
The "separation of church and state" is an ideal set forth by Thomas Jefferson. The phrase was used by him to reiterate the 1st amendment establishing the governments removal from religious beliefs. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. again I'm an atheist but I believe in truth above all. Here is his quote for those who also hold some truth self evident

The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

“ "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]
reply
2 ups
The way the constitution works is that you have to include all religions or none Which one do you think is easier?

Anyways, because of this, if they were to implement say a rule in the book of Islam just because it's in the book, that infringes on the rights of Christians, Jews, non-believers, etc.
"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."
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Don't mind me; I'm just here to watch flamewars unfold.
reply
1 up
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Correct, when the constitution was wrote; state levied taxes in the name of the endorsed church which distributed the welfare spending. The first amendment/freedom of a state church meant no American would have to pay into a state church fund, since state churches often claimed that people not living by the prescribed rhetoric were ineligible for ‘welfare’. In lay terms, our American forefathers believed in the possibility that welfare would no longer be needed (Democratic-Republican Party), that religiously blind states did better operating welfare money (anti-federalist), or the religiously blind Federal government did better (federalist).
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The church was the original "welfare."
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Please tell me someone on here gets this reference.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
No
reply
0 ups
Here you go, get some awesome culture in you ;) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x365em1
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Damn! I'm an atheist, but the amount of hate coming from both sides on this topic is a little over the top! O.o
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
The Constitution was written by Christians, many of whom were strong believers in their faith. The Constitution specifically separated Church and State in order to avoid two things: the State establishing a central Church, and any religion from seizing control of the state (which would lead to the establishment of a central Church). Neither of them is more important than the other because they lean on each other.
The separation of Church and State was a response to the taxes the colonists were forced to pay to the Church of England. As such, the State cannot sanction a religion and make policies based on religious beliefs. The State is meant to be run free of religious views so that religious discrimination or discrimination "justified" by religion would not have grounds in legislation or execution of the law.
Religion is a deeply polarizing subject, and has either caused or been used to justify some of the worst wars, atrocities, and other horrific acts throughout the ages. For example, the Crusades, the Buddhist Vietcong in Vietnam, the Inquisition, the rise of Islamist Terrorism and ISIS, and (arguably) the Holocaust. These are examples of what may happen when religion and government are too closely interwoven in a state.
The other side is that the State cannot interfere with the workings of the Church. The State cannot regulate what the Church teaches or preaches, who may attend, where and when sermons or services may be held, etc. The State is meant to have a Hands Off policy to prevent the abuse of power against members of a non-State-sanctioned religion.
Communism is an example of the State meddling in the Church's affairs. Religious bans or limitations cause tension between religious organizations and the State, which doesn't often end well for either.
One of the main ideals of the separation of Church and State is that the government takes care of the economic and social needs of its citizens, while religion tends to their followers' spiritual and moral needs. On their own, corruption will eventually sprout, but when combined the corruption goes from being one or two ugly plants in your yard to BEING your new yard. We are seeing this happening now, albeit at a much slower rate than during the dark ages, when the Catholic Church had a stranglehold on spiritual AND economic and social authority.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I agree with the second part of SpursFan's statement, but not the first. Neither should meddle with the other.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Most of the users here are being quite civil, with the exception of a few.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
It's just that the ones who are misbehaving are being harsher than normal. At least it seems like more than the usual level to me.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I think I've made a couple enemies recently. Tttony (which I believe just deleted his account from what I see in the comment threat) followed me here from another threat. I think he's a user on here and Tttony is just an alt account.And there's a new account called "blankyourgod. I think I'm being stalked.
reply
1 up
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
The government shall make no law with respect to the establishment of any religion. It addresses both sides of the issue. Tough luck if you don't like it. The government can't go near your church so keep your religion away from the government. I don't bow towards Mecca and I won't kneel for your silly little cross.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
I don't really care if you now right now. When Christ comes back every knee will now. But I know what the constitution says .
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Keep your religion away from my freedom. Not everyone believes in your fairy tales.
reply
2 ups
No one is forcing you to join the church or "believe" in one's god. You're delusional to think you're being oppressed by the "religious nuts."

I find it interesting to think that someone like you believe people like me are forcing you to believe the way we believe or to worship God and not think you're infringing on my rights to worship freely. If you truly understood the Constitution and the first amendment, you wouldn't be here spewing your hate.
reply
1 up
*Cough* trump
reply
0 ups
Seems to me like it was meant to do both. They wanted to stop paying taxes to the Church of England. So they were making sure there would be no official religion. Thereby ensuring that laws wouldn't be made that favor (or establish) one religion over another. It's just taking our society a long time to come around to the fact that it means any form of faith system. That's why in god we trust is still on our money. Just like many forms of racial discrimination exist even though many laws have been passed that are meant to deter raciail discrimination. It's taking a long time to recover from the disease even though we have discovered the cure.
reply
0 ups
or scientist?
reply
0 ups
It's factually incorrect, upvoted anyway.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
Looks as if someone doesn't understand the constitution. Not surprising.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
And that someone is you.
reply
2 ups
Yeah, I know nothing about it. *rolls eyes*
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
Unlike you, I know what leftists' ideas of the constitution are about.
reply
1 up
Actually, it is.
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
It's not alternative viewpoints I mind. It's the blatant ignorance of many people and their foolish views of what the constitution actually states. Misreading and misinterpreting the constitution is a progressive agenda to rid this country of God and his believers.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Nobody wants to rid the country of you. We want you to stop acting like you own the place.
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
Infringing on the rights to worship freely in this country is a big deal for the progressive atheist. Something along the lines of a fictional religious war.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Absolutely wrong. Worship all you want. Just don't assume it's supposed to be part of the public narrative. You are very aware that it's not anti religious to want religion out of my life. I don't come to your church and crack open a beer and put my feet on the pews. You can keep it to yourself if you choose to do so. But that's not in the playbook for you is it? You want to reclaim the rights that nobody is trying to take from you.
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
I never said I want to force my beliefs on you. This meme isn't even about that. This meme is about what the founders intended when they wrote the first amendment. Unfortunately the progressives believe in 're-writing history to fit their warped agenda. I'm not trying to force anything on you.
4 ups
You defend the right to discriminate against others based on your freedom of religion. But my freedom FROM religion means that you can't do that. Based on the first amendment. Not on your interpretation of the first amendment. But this is really just about attention isn't it? Look how much I love Jeebus. I'm soooo cool.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
Do you not realize that non-religious views are pushed upon religious people constantly, especially im schools. The claim that it is scientifically proven is a bullshit lie used to gain permission to push your views onto us. There is as much scientific evidence for creation as there is gor evolution, but only evolution is allowed in schools because it doesn't involve religion. So don't be stating this bullshit about religious views being pushed on anyone when there are more non-religious views being pushed than anything. Other views that are pushed upon religious people is sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual relationships just to name a few.
1 up
Anyone who believes there's scientific evidence for creation understands neither science nor evidence.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
Telling a business owner that they are not allowed to refuse business to anyone they choose when it involves religious reasons is forcing your beliefs onto them. Force children to be taught evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis but not allow alternatives to be taught is forcing your beliefs onto others. Telling people they should feel comfortable with a man walking into the women's restroom/locker room is forcing your beliefs onto them. Shall I keep going?
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
And it isn't a form of discrimination by either forcing religious people to do your biding or sue them until they do? Tell me again how many athiests are sued by Christians because athiests refuse services for whatever reason? Tolerance goes both ways asshole, and it is time you f**king learn that.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
I'm the asshole that needs to live and let live? You the f**king douche b**ching and moaning about religious people expressing their viewpoints. Your are just a butthurt asshole that can't handle the fact that there are way more non-religious views that are pushed onto religious people on a daily basis than there is the other way around.
reply
2 ups
Ho-hum...yet another imgflipper/atheist who thinks I'm trying to impose my beliefs on them.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
And you earned your degree in constitutional law where again? I must have missed the post where you listed your credentials.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
I will reply to you here since you commented where I can't reply. Those who don't think there is evidence for creation is the one who doesn't understand creation. There is only limited evidence of evolution, limited to the point it can not be fully proven by any scientific means. The same scientific evidence people require for creation cannot be provided for evolution. So don't be trying to tell me I don't know anything about science or evidence.
reply
2 ups
I didn't know I needed a degree to know my constitutional rights. Where are yours?
reply
6 ups
Yeah, we're just going in circles...I'm out.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
The constitution tells us our individual rights come from "God" and not humans/governments.

So...maybe, not be such a sandy-vaged b**ch about the document that was the first to actually FREE humans from monarchies/governments.

And, if it wasn't for the Christians douchebags like you hate so much, slavery would still be acceptable. :{
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
So another "fan" of history huh?

Don't worry kid, we get it, you hate Christians.

It's sad that you can't get any further into history than the parts you latch onto to fuel your hate.

Please, look up Christian abolitionism.

And Messiah DID free slaves by teaching us to love one another. Your point, was already negated before you memed.

It took the US only 80 years to abolish slavery. That's shorter than ANY other country in the world.

And Christians were in control of the country at the time.

Abe Lincoln being a Christian-Calvinist and all. lol :{
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I don't "hate" anyone, you seem to have that category all wrapped up.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
lol So nothing huh kid.

1865 the US abolished slavery. That's 89 years.

Shorter than ALL the other countries in the world kid. You can try and deny it like the hater you are, but it's cool. I get it.

And no, you're thinking of BEFORE it was abolished.

The funny thing is how you STFU over that crap you were spewing about the Christians.

Imitation is flattering too. :{
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
lol It's always the troll card with you people. :{
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Must really burn you up inside, huh?
reply
2 ups
Not as bad as burning in Muslim hell.
Flip Settings
But Thats None Of My Business memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KEEPING RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN TO KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY RIGHT TO WORSHIP FREELY; BUT THAT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back