NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I was sent this email and I would like to see some responses to this, mostly because I'm too lazy to research it. Someone sent this to me and I'm inclined to point out the inaccuracies - it is not true that 52 of the 55 founders were Christians.

http://www.dmcgop.com/local/pr0_0728_15.shtm

DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall,
right above where the Supreme Court judges sit,
a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, DC

DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law. An oligarchy.
the rule of few over many.

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn...
It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

If you agree, pass this on

EDIT: Since some people seem to be missing it - I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS EMAIL

I will pass this on, thank you for pointing this out. :)

Psst -- the fact that the Founding Fathers started your country doesn't mean they were perfect. Seriously, you guys have way too much of a hero complex built up around them. They were only human. They could be wrong. Accept it.

I will pass this on, thank you for pointing this out. :)

Actually I believe in the separation of church and state as it protects the church rather than the state. What if the church was Muslim would you be so anxious for them to be allowed to rule the government then? What if the Christian doctrine the government follows is different from yours and they outlaw things you need in order to freely express your religion?

sounds quite fundamentalist

Psst -- the fact that the Founding Fathers started your country doesn't mean they were perfect. Seriously, you guys have way too much of a hero complex built up around them. They were only human. They could be wrong. Accept it.


And they could be right. Accept it.

Ok, I was sent this email and I would like to see some responses to this, mostly because I'm too lazy to research it. Someone sent this to me and I'm inclined to point out the inaccuracies - it is not true that 52 of the 55 founders were Christians.

http://www.dmcgop.com/local/pr0_0728_15.shtm

DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall,
right above where the Supreme Court judges sit,
a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, DC

DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law. An oligarchy.
the rule of few over many.

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn...
It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

If you agree, pass this on

*passes this on*

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

And they could be right. Accept it.

Yes, they could be. I suppose it's remotely possible that one set of people, several hundred years ago, came up with the one perfect way to run a country, and managed to convey their message perfectly in the written word.

Anyone care to calculate some odds on that?

Yes, they could be. I suppose it's remotely possible that one set of people, several hundred years ago, came up with the one perfect way to run a country, and managed to convey their message perfectly in the written word.

Anyone care to calculate some odds on that?

It's more likely then you think, if you believe in the christian faith. but no one said there were not any flaws in the way they built the government, such as the issue of state's rights (which was a major failure) that eventualy lead to civil war.

It's more likely then you think, if you believe in the christian faith. but no one said there were not any flaws in the way they built the government, such as the issue of state's rights (which was a major failure) that eventualy lead to civil war.

You're correct, they could be right. Especially when they said to protect both the church and the state they should be kept seperate. And, for the record, do some research and you'll find that most of them would have utterly disagreed with your definition of Christianity, whatever it is.

Freedom of religion means freedom from religion... as no one can force another to practice one specific religion in this country, no one can force the practice of religion in general.

Christianity is not the only religion in American. Some are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Atheist or Non-theist... the list goes on and on. The purpose of our country is to be the melting pot of all cultures, a place where people who are oppressed in the arena of religion can turn to... why, then, are we turning into a theocracy? Church and State should remain seperate, especially when fundamentalists who speak only for a small part of one religion seek to control the entire country. Even devout Christians believe in this seperation.

Did you know that the separation of church and state is a highly propagated myth. There is no such law found in the constitution.

I was really hoping someone knowledgeable on the subject would address the specific points of the email, rather than people just expressing their faiths.

Freedom of religion means freedom from religion... as no one can force another to practice one specific religion in this country, no one can force the practice of religion in general.

Christianity is not the only religion in American. Some are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Atheist or Non-theist... the list goes on and on. The purpose of our country is to be the melting pot of all cultures, a place where people who are oppressed in the arena of religion can turn to... why, then, are we turning into a theocracy? Church and State should remain seperate, especially when fundamentalists who speak only for a small part of one religion seek to control the entire country. Even devout Christians believe in this seperation.

But not to the extreme that librals are taking now, example: The ACLU trying to ban all Boy Scouts from government land and such because they mention god in an oath they take when they join.

Freedom of religion means freedom from religion.
No it doesn't. As long as you are not persecuted for your beliefs you have freedom of religion. Freedom from religion would mean taking any mention of religion out of public places, which is by no means what was meant.

I think in the USA there's the opposite problem: the people who believe in God are trying to force everyone to be a Christian Puritan (prayers in classes, adoption only for regular Christian families, and several other issues proposed by Christian Groups): in the US there's a sort of christian fundamentalism raising, which is as dangerous as any other fundamentalism

the problem is some people give more importance to the rights of an undefined entity, whose existance is a congepture, than to the rights of men

I suggest that everyone that wants to pass that piece of mindless drivel on does some research first. Like here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

Isn't it wonderful how people accept things that fit their agenda without question ?

I suggest that everyone that wants to pass that piece of mindless drivel on does some research first. Like here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

Isn't it wonderful how people accept things that fit their agenda without question ?

Thank you. That was exactly what I expecting to find. I knew some of what the email said wasn't true, but as I said earlier I was too lazy to research it.

I think in the USA there's the opposite problem: the people who believe in God are trying to force everyone to be a Christian Puritan (prayers in classes, adoption only for regular Christian families, and several other issues proposed by Christian Groups): in the US there's a sort of christian fundamentalism raising, which is as dangerous as any other fundamentalism
While I do not like the rise in fundamentalism here in the US, I can understand why it's happening. The extreme wing of the Left has been pushing to get their agenda into law for 40 years and have largely been successful. They have been pushing REALLY hard and openly for 10-15 years. The fundies have gotten sick of it and decided to push back.

Honestly, the rise of fundamentalism in the US can be directly attributed to the fact that Leftists have tried to push their agenda to the extreme too far, too fast. They really have no one to blame but themselves for the "Rise of the Fundies™".

Freedom of religion means freedom from religion... as no one can force another to practice one specific religion in this country, no one can force the practice of religion in general.

Christianity is not the only religion in American. Some are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Atheist or Non-theist... the list goes on and on. The purpose of our country is to be the melting pot of all cultures, a place where people who are oppressed in the arena of religion can turn to... why, then, are we turning into a theocracy? Church and State should remain seperate, especially when fundamentalists who speak only for a small part of one religion seek to control the entire country. Even devout Christians believe in this seperation.

I've yet to see one single shread of evidence that we are turning into a theocracy. First amendment.

While I do not like the rise in fundamentalism here in the US, I can understand why it's happening. The extreme wing of the Left has been pushing to get their agenda into law for 40 years and have largely been successful. They have been pushing REALLY hard and openly for 10-15 years. The fundies have gotten sick of it and decided to push back.

Honestly, the rise of fundamentalism in the US can be directly attributed to the fact that Leftists have tried to push their agenda to the extreme too far, too fast. They really have no one to blame but themselves for the "Rise of the Fundies™".

Interesting theory, partly I agree with. Maybe the Leftist were in fact a little too progressive in the last years, probably overstimating their electoral supports
But for me there's also another reason: the crisis of the past years, started long before 9/11, created a negative attitude towards the traditional politics which fits perfectly with the Right-wing populism and the religious propaganda

both factors summed up created the situation now
in Europe now there's a slow return to the left-wing values, while in the US I see that the situation has changed in the opposite direction

Did you know that the separation of church and state is a highly propagated myth. There is no such law found in the constitution.
Actually, there is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
So, no official religions.

Indeed the errors are tantamount.

The present US government was founded in 1789 by Constitutional Convention [not 1777 as supposed in the article; the United States of America was governed under a seperate Constitution (Articles of Confederation); from 1777-1788]... This is also why the "First President" is "George Washington"... If the 1777-1788 Confederation was included as the same, John Hanson would be considered the first President, and not Washington.

Patrick Henry was not a "Founding Father" of the United States, though he was a patriot. Henry (or rather Govenor Henry) founded the "Commonwealth of Virginia" as the first independent "State" in America [1776] and the first State Constitution (Virginia, 1776). Part of the first acts in Virginia in formulating the new government was:

1. The abolishment of state churches.
2. The removal of religious oaths of office.
3. The formulation of a Virginia Bill of Rights [later used as a model for the United States Bill of Rights (Amendments I-X)].

Prior to the independence of Virginia (1776, May), and his Patrick Henry's appointment as Govenor, he served in the previous legislative offices, The House of Burgesses. Most of the best known quotes from him, occur not before the Continental Congress (such as his "Liberty or Death" speach), but before the Virginia House of Burgesses.... While the two incidents (Virginia independence, and American independency) are connected... Patrick Henry was a Father of Virginia... not necessarily the United States (though his work in Virginia in both the House of Burgesses (prior to 1776) and Govenor, did greatly influence the course taken by the other states during the Continental Congress.... However, Henry was never directly part of the Congress, his representative was Richard Henry Lee (Brother of Francis "Lightfood" Lee; Robert E. Lee's grandfather) a former member of the House of Burgesses, who was appointed by to represent Virginia at the Convention.

Actually, there is:

So, no official religions.

Try reading all of it next time:

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 grievance.

There is a line, where it belongs and where we put it, is not as clear cut as some anti-free-exercise-of-religion people would have you believe.

There is a point when the community’s right to share and celebrate common beliefs as a community are infringed upon to the detriment of the community...

Where are their sources?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!


DID YOU KNOW? There are 16 other statues? One is even Napoleon. They represent all the influences of law on the land.


DID YOU KNOW?

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall,
right above where the Supreme Court judges sit,
a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, DC


DID YOU KNOW?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp


DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."


DID YOU KNOW?

That quote can't be found ANYWHERE?

James Madison said many things and spend the last days of his life arguing about the misuse of his comments?

DID YOU KNOW?

He wrote:

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"


DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."


DID YOU KNOW?

You can find that quote ANYWHERE?

Thomas Paine the spirit of the Revolution once said:

"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."

and

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."


DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?

Madison was against this?

I think there is even a case against it as well.


DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.


DID YOU KNOW?

You can't simply lump all of their Religious beliefs into one nice simple category? Their practices were diverse. Many actively practices forms of diesm and masonry.....


DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law. An oligarchy.
the rule of few over many.


DID YOU KNOW?

This has nothing to do with the endorsement of the Christianity?

Thomas Jefferson was concerned about courts overstepping their authority by making laws. Christians feel they have done this when they rule against the use or display of Relgious symbols and references in state-operate institutions.

Thomas Jefferson spent the end of his life speaking badly of Religion, did not want a Priest at his death bead, and made sure his tombstone didn't have anything religious on it.


DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."


DID YOU KNOW?

That he really wrote:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire."

DID YOU KNOW?

The Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." (Signed by President Adams)


How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?


It's called revisionist history.

When you quote somebody you should look for the source. Spurious quotes appear all the time. What is interesting is that they appear for America=Christianity all the time.

A single quote rarely defines the man. You have to look at their writings. Madison is frequently misquoted and you can find in his writings that he was frustrated by that and spent a great deal of time arguing against the fact.


Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn...


Don't worry I won't.


It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance.


Belief in God is different from suggesting this country was founded for Christianity.

"In God We Trust" formally appeared in 1908 and the pledge was in 1954. They are not tradition.

The Ten Commandments are fine as long as they don't suggest this religion over all others. The goverment is supposed to be Religous Neutral.


Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

Because you would violate the Constitution.

Try reading all of it next time:

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 grievance.

There is a line, where it belongs and where we put it, is not as clear cut as some anti-free-exercise-of-religion people would have you believe.

There is a point when the community’s right to share and celebrate common beliefs as a community are infringed upon to the detriment of the community...

He read the important part. It means no law should be based on religion or give benefit to a religion. Clearly, money that mentions God and a pledge that mentions God gives benefit to religions based on God.

Also, he was responding the point that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution, but clearly the first part of the amendment establishes exactly that, a separation of church and state.

The government must be agnostic, not atheist, is the point of the second part.

Did you know the founders of this nation allowed citizens to own other human beings as a piece of property?

Did you know the founders didn't allow certain people to vote based on the color of their skin or their gender?


Just because the founders did something doesn't make it right. Times change, so should we.

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Yes freedom from religion in that you don't have to listen to it in a public setting(ie public school class rooms). Freedom from Religion since the state will not endorse one religion over the other.

Nobody is trying to abolish the ability to go to church/mosque/temple......

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

That must be one old preacher!!!

Did you know that the separation of church and state is a highly propagated myth. There is no such law found in the constitution.

Did you know the Constitution is not only about absolutes?

James Madison said:

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"

Your interpretation is wrong.

Did you know the founders of this nation allowed citizens to own other human beings as a piece of property?

Did you know the founders didn't allow certain people to vote based on the color of their skin or their gender?


Just because the founders did something doesn't make it right. Times change, so should we.Exactly what I was about to say.

The founders also were afraid of democracy, and were worried it would lead to anarchy. Elbridge Gerry called democracy the greatest evil possible in a civilized society. Funny how times change.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

No it doesn't. As long as you are not persecuted for your beliefs you have freedom of religion. Freedom from religion would mean taking any mention of religion out of public places, which is by no means what was meant.

Yes it does. You can go out in a park, state property, etc. Get your soap box and preech.

You can't however go into a public class room and preech.

You can't force people to listen to what you have to say.

As such freedom from religion.

That must be one old preacher!!!

Ha! I thought the same thing when I read this.

Yes freedom from religion in that you don't have to listen to it in a public setting(ie public school class rooms). Freedom from Religion since the state will not endorse one religion over the other.

Nobody is trying to abolish the ability to go to church/mosque/temple......

Banning the right to pray in a classroom is infringing on the right to excersize religion freely, and is therefore unconstitutional. If I want to pray silently by myself, then I'll pray, damnit.

I realize that no one is trying to abolish the ability to go church/ mosque/ whatever. But the ACLU is infringing on the right to excersize freely by persecuting groups like the Boy Scouts for having God in their Oath. Publicly professing a belief in God is not a crime.

While I do not like the rise in fundamentalism here in the US, I can understand why it's happening. The extreme wing of the Left has been pushing to get their agenda into law for 40 years and have largely been successful. They have been pushing REALLY hard and openly for 10-15 years. The fundies have gotten sick of it and decided to push back.

Honestly, the rise of fundamentalism in the US can be directly attributed to the fact that Leftists have tried to push their agenda to the extreme too far, too fast. They really have no one to blame but themselves for the "Rise of the Fundies™".

:D

Only you can find a way to blame the left for this.

Carry on!

;)

Banning the right to pray in a classroom is infringing on the right to excersize religion freely, and is therefore unconstitutional. If I want to pray silently by myself, then I'll pray, damnit.

No one has banned your right to pray silently in a classroom (in fact, many people do, particularly right before tests). They have required that children not meet in groups to pray or pray aloud. This is because this forces your religion on other children in a place they cannot avoid. If you were going to a school that was 90% Muslim and they met in groups to pray each day, you might find yourself feeling like your freedom to be Christian is being just a little stepped on.

Banning the right to pray in a classroom is infringing on the right to excersize religion freely, and is therefore unconstitutional. If I want to pray silently by myself, then I'll pray, damnit.

I realize that no one is trying to abolish the ability to go church/ mosque/ whatever. But the ACLU is infringing on the right to excersize freely by persecuting groups like the Boy Scouts for having God in their Oath. Publicly professing a belief in God is not a crime.

Nobody says you can't pray in a classroom. Every student prays before a test or quiz. ;) What is banned is setting aside class time to make people pray.
Personally, I have no issues with Christians asking for a room to hold prayers. The same goes for Muslims, etc.

Private religious schools can pray all they want.

The Boy Scouts are being persecuted for many things. There are hard core christians in the main councel now.

There was a case with a gay scout master. The troop knew it. The parents of the scouts knew it and were ok with it. Yet he was booted. That troop ceased to exist after that.

Did you hear about the council guy trading kiddy porn?

I am an Eagle Scout BTW. I have noticed major attitude changes over the years.

Finally, there is nothing wrong proclaiming your a Christian. However, you are wrong to expect me to live by your moral code.

Did you know that the separation of church and state is a highly propagated myth. There is no such law found in the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;"

They cannot subsidize, grant authority to, enforce, or otherwise, and establishment (order or body) of religion. [a church/congregation]

"nor prohibit the free exercize thereof."

They may not prohibit (forbid) free practice. (However, they may "restrict" it to common laws... "Restrict" and "Prohibit" are different terms).

No state churches. No state authority used to enforce religious (institutional) discipline or practice. No state authority to ban, bar, or outlaw a religious belief (specific or in general) except, whereby, they may restrict a "practice" of a religious belief if it impedes upon the rights of another (human sacrifice, jihads).

IOW Seperation of Church and State. The Church Government has authority over its own members. The General Government (State/Federal) has authority over the entire body of its citizenry.... Seperate authority, seperate powers.

Church meddling to create laws, respecting their particular issues of religiosu discipline is a violation of Clause 1. State meddling to bar persons from independent prayer is a violation of Clause 2.

Banning the right to pray in a classroom is infringing on the right to excersize religion freely, and is therefore unconstitutional. If I want to pray silently by myself, then I'll pray, damnit.


Are you kidding?

No one is trying to stop individuals from silently praying to themselves in school or any other setting for that matter. What was taken up in court was prohibiting school lead prayer. Being as students are forced to be in school, having school lead prayer, either in the classroom or intercom or whatever, is basically forcing them to listen to it and only the specific prayer of whatever religion the person doing the audible prayer is a member of.

Silent personal prayer has never been an issue of contention, because no one if forced to listen to it and it does not promote any one religion over any other (including athiesm.) However setting aside any part of the school day for private prayer purposes promotes religion over non-religion. You can pray, just do it on your own time. It's not like people are so busy in school they cant utter to themselves a brief prayer without making the school schedule time for everyone to do it.

Nobody says you can't pray in a classroom. Every student prays before a test or quiz. ;) What is banned is setting aside class time to make people pray.

HEHE! I said it first (said in a sing-song manner). :p

He read the important part. It means no law should be based on religion or give benefit to a religion. Clearly, money that mentions God and a pledge that mentions God gives benefit to religions based on God.

Also, he was responding the point that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution, but clearly the first part of the amendment establishes exactly that, a separation of church and state.

The government must be agnostic, not atheist, is the point of the second part.

The constitution does not say that no law can give benefit to religion, or else they couldn't be tax-exempt now could they? You exaggerate perhaps to make your point? They would need to be regulated and taxed by the government if they couldn't be favored. Your simple solution fails to provide a satisfactory answer to for the problem.

The separation of church and state is a concept, likely intended to a degree, much differently interpreted by different readers. Much like the 2nd amendment was intended to explicitly say something one way or the other but now people fight all the time about what it means to execute that amendment...

But the truth is, the first amendment does NOT say we can't base laws on religious ideology if the community agrees with them. Such as polygamy, incest (between adults) and bestiality. These are laws we enacted because of our community religious and moral beliefs. Otherwise an incestuous deist would be able to sue the state not just because we infringe on his right to marry his two sister and copulate with his livestock, but we infringe on his religious beliefs in doing so as well...

Obviously there IS a line that the communities in America cannot cross, but it does exist. They ARE allowed to share some religious community standards… where does it belong? Well, somewhere in-between the two extremes I suppose.

Try reading all of it next time:

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 grievance.

There is a line, where it belongs and where we put it, is not as clear cut as some anti-free-exercise-of-religion people would have you believe.

There is a point when the community’s right to share and celebrate common beliefs as a community are infringed upon to the detriment of the community...

Yes. The governments will be Religious Neutral.

*Edit as I was corrected later on: Originally "There is nothing wrong"*

I have no problems with a city giving money to the church. As long as funds are ready for all religions.

There is nothing wrong with Religious symbols as long as others are not excluded.
A community can celibrate any religion they want. The goverment is supposed to prevent the community from supressing other religions.

Nobody says you can't pray in a classroom. Every student prays before a test or quiz. ;) What is banned is setting aside class time to make people pray.
Personally, I have no issues with Christians asking for a room to hold prayers. The same goes for Muslims, etc.

Private religious schools can pray all they want.

The Boy Scouts are being persecuted for many things. There are hard core christians in the main councel now.

There was a case with a gay scout master. The troop knew it. The parents of the scouts knew it and were ok with it. Yet he was booted. That troop ceased to exist after that.

Did you hear about the council guy trading kiddy porn?

I am an Eagle Scout BTW. I have noticed major attitude changes over the years.

Finally, there is nothing wrong proclaiming your a Christian. However, you are wrong to expect me to live by your moral code.

1) You're right, I do that a lot, as well. I agree, you can't make people pray, and if they want to set aside special rooms intended for praying, I'm fine with that.

2) He shouldn't have been, especially if the parents were fine with it.

3) I don't expect anyone to live by my moral code, as mine is a little ackward itself. ;)

That must be one old preacher!!!Old??? He'd be only in his early 200s. That's young! I've lived about 40,000,000 times longer than him!

Oh wait...humans live only a pitiful 70 years...I'd forgotten...

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

1) You're right, I do that a lot, as well. I agree, you can't make people pray, and if they want to set aside special rooms intended for praying, I'm fine with that.

2) He shouldn't have been, especially if the parents were fine with it.

3) I don't expect anyone to live by my moral code, as mine is a little ackward itself. ;)

No worries.

Contradicting view points make you reflect on your own.

;)

HEHE! I said it first (said in a sing-song manner). :p

Hey you just type faster! :P


Great minds right? ;)

Banning the right to pray in a classroom is infringing on the right to excersize religion freely, and is therefore unconstitutional. If I want to pray silently by myself, then I'll pray, damnit.
There has never been a case of a student being prevented from praying quietly in class, no matter how many spurious e-mail chain letters claim otherwise. But there are religious zealots who aren't happy with simply praying to themselves, arguing that the teachers need to include a special prayer time as a daily feature of class. Such institutionalized religious practice is disrespectful of students who do not have religious beliefs, or have ones which do not include prayer, and have no place in government-sponsored activities. They also detract from the school's mission.

The "separation of church and state" is based on an interpretation of the First Amendment by Thomas Jefferson, and has been validated by judicial precedent. It is very real.

Freedom of religion can only exist if it includes freedom from religion. To do otherwise is hypocricy... not that hypocricy is normally effective as a deterrent...

No one has banned your right to pray silently in a classroom (in fact, many people do, particularly right before tests). They have required that children not meet in groups to pray or pray aloud. This is because this forces your religion on other children in a place they cannot avoid. If you were going to a school that was 90% Muslim and they met in groups to pray each day, you might find yourself feeling like your freedom to be Christian is being just a little stepped on.

In no way would I feel them meeting and praying would be infringing on my belief. As long as they aren't bashing me or my belief in their verbally spoken prayers.

Hey you just type faster! :P


Great minds right? ;)Well, I mean, everyone prays before exams. ;)


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The constitution does not say that no law can give benefit to religion, or else they couldn't be tax-exempt now could they? You exaggerate perhaps to make your point? They would need to be regulated and taxed by the government if they couldn't be favored. Your simple solution fails to provide a satisfactory answer to for the problem.

Cannot benefit A religion. Churches could technically be founded for deists, atheists, wiccans, etc. and be protected under law. Churches are protected like other non-profit organizations. Many churches have lost their exempt status when it was decided that they were aimed at profit.

The separation of church and state is a concept, likely intended to a degree, much differently interpreted by different readers. Much like the 2nd amendment was intended to explicitly say something one way or the other but now people fight all the time about what it means to execute that amendment...

But the truth is, the first amendment does NOT say we can't base laws on religious ideology if the community agrees with them. Such as polygamy, incest (between adults) and bestiality. These are laws we enacted because of our community religious and moral beliefs. Otherwise an incestuous deist would be able to sue the state not just because we infringe on his right to marry his two sister and copulate with his livestock, but we infringe on his religious beliefs in doing so as well...

Actually, beastiality laws are in effort to protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves. Incest laws are such because incest has a significant increase in the production of deformed or retarded children. Even in second cousins the increase is 2%. This is why first cousins and closer are forbidden to marry or have sex (since we can't force sterilization). These are hardly religious concepts. Because an idea matches with religious ideals does not make it religious. We infringe upon religious beliefs when they violate the freedom of another. We don't allow people to sacrifice cows or people for their religion either. Is that a religious law?

In no way would I feel them meeting and praying would be infringing on my belief. As long as they aren't bashing me or my belief in their verbally spoken prayers.Well you aren't a fundamentalist, are you?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Yes. The goverments will be Religious Neutral.

There is nothing wrong with a city giving money to the church. As long as funds are ready for all religions.

There is nothing wrong with Religious symbols as long as others are not excluded.

A community can celibrate any religion they want. The goverment is supposed to prevent the community from supressing other religions.

Actually 1st Amendment case law prohibits government using funds levied from taxes to be used to suppliment a religious institution: ( Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15 -16 [1947] ) However, the decision also held that (under benefit clause) that state funds can be used to facilitate transportation of children to and from Private Religious schools. (The same clause is used to uphold Personal Tax Waivers for those sending their children to private [religious or not] schools; since the funds are used for the benefit of the child, as opposed to the "institution".)

Hey you just type faster! :P


Great minds right? ;)

I offer no such compliment. Out loud. ;)

*passes this on*

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Um. Free exercise of religion and no establishment of religion.

The Founders were -- and, more importantly, the Constitution is -- crystal clear that a wall should separate church and state, for the good of church and state.

Think about it. How can you have true freedom of religion if the government taxes us all to support some religious viewpoints and not others?

Um. Free exercise of religion and no establishment of religion.

The Founders were -- and, more importantly, the Constitution is -- crystal clear that a wall should separate church and state, for the good of church and state.

Think about it. How can you have true freedom of religion if the government taxes us all to support some religious viewpoints and not others?

I guess this is why we have a Chaplain in the Senate.

Actually, beastiality laws are in effort to protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.

That's funny, you can maim them, force them to copulate, or even artificial inseminate them, and then kill them ... but you can't have sex with them because we are protecting those that can't protect themselves? Since when do they have rights that need protecting at all? Now mayb if someone held the PETA beliefs, but then I'd rather go to civil war than submit, so, that leads no where fast.


Incest laws are such because incest has a significant increase in the production of deformed or retarded children. Even in second cousins the increase is 2%. This is why first cousins and closer are forbidden to marry or have sex (since we can't force sterilization). These are hardly religious concepts. No, that's not true. We don't do blood tests before marriage license are approved anymore becuase the folk-tale stories that you just said, baby's genetics would be messed up, etc., etc., is really just old-wives tales and utter nonsense. The scientific world has long since dropped that. If we were really worried about genetics in children, they would do blood compatibility tests for all marriage in an attempt to stop people who are more likely to produce children with defects... I really don't think thats what you meant, but that is what you said.

Birth defects is NOT a valid reason to not allow inncestuous marriages, it's purely community moral code that outlaws such behaviors.

Because an idea matches with religious ideals does not make it religious. We infringe upon religious beliefs when they violate the freedom of another. We don't allow people to sacrifice cows or people for their religion either. Is that a religious law?

Mostly true. But the community infringes on all kinds of individual civil liberties, when they share community values the have always had that right, as it should be.

The modern revisionist go in both directions, liberal and conservative.

Well you aren't a fundamentalist, are you?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe


I'd have to read up on what a fundamentalist is before I'd know if I was one or not. Highly doubt I am though, being as I have my own way of thinking and have yet to agree on all or most of anything with anyone.

My reply was strictly based on that hypothetical circumstance. I can think of other things that would offend me.. but Muslims praying isn't one of them.

---------

What is wrong with this site? Almost everytime I try to go to different page, or a topic or to refresh a page it messes up.

Think about it. How can you have true freedom of religion if the government taxes us all to support some religious viewpoints and not others?
How about the government currently taxing churches and the money (possibly) going to promote openly anti-religious viewpoints?

"Separation of Church and State" only is applied when it furthers the goals of government.

What is wrong with this site? Almost everytime I try to go to different page, or a topic or to refresh a page it messes up.
Don't worry about Jolt. It always does this. Whenever an interesting topic comes up, all you get are the 500 Internal Server Errors, the database errors, 404 Not Found Errors, etc.

Once I got

1) Tried to access a thread and got a 500 Internal Server

2) Refreshed and got a 404 Not Found

3) Refreshed and got a database error

4) Refreshed and got an invalid thread error

5) Refreshed, tried to post and got a not logged in error

I love Jolt.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The Founders were -- and, more importantly, the Constitution is -- crystal clear that a wall should separate church and state, for the good of church and state.

Thats debateable to say the least. There are many (verified) quotes or writings from some of the Founding Fathers that support some level intermixing of religion/morality into the government. Not as much Thomas Jefferson and James Madison but George Washington and the Adamses.

I guess this is why we have a Chaplain in the Senate.

Actually, most governmental offices have a "Chaplain" in cohort, (similar to use of Chaplains in the Armed Forces), whose purpose (much like military chaplains) is towards the "duties includ[ing] counseling and spiritual care for the Senators, their families and their staffs,". The Chaplains are to facilitate officers of the government (as people) towards their rights as outlined in principle of the second part of clause 1, towards their "free-exercize" of religion, while in operation of their duties.

Yes freedom from religion in that you don't have to listen to it in a public setting(ie public school class rooms). Freedom from Religion since the state will not endorse one religion over the other.

Nobody is trying to abolish the ability to go to church/mosque/temple......

But would you censor anyone else if they attempted to make their speech public? Would you be in favor of censoring network television to remove any overtly sexual images? Would you be in favor of banning political speech on the radio? Would you be in favor of restricting political advertising on television?

The issue here is that if you enable a "freedom from" some kind of speech - religious or otherwise - you are forced to advocate a position that allows for censorship.

The first amendment protects us by ensuring that no matter how abhorrent our views are, as long as they don't endanger someone's life or property, we are able to say them without impediment.

So that means that yes, you may be subjected to religious speech where you would prefer not to be, but that happening is much better than the alternative.

What is wrong with this site? Almost everytime I try to go to different page, or a topic or to refresh a page it messes up.
Jolt at its worst is like a drizzle compared to the hurricaine the old servers used to be.

Jolt at its worst is like a drizzle compared to the hurricaine the old servers used to be like.I think that's the original reason I left NS in early '04...the servers were just bombing on me, I still had a dial-up connection...basically.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Actually, most governmental offices have a "Chaplain" in cohort, (similar to use of Chaplains in the Armed Forces), whose purpose (much like military chaplains) is towards the "duties includ[ing] counseling and spiritual care for the Senators, their families and their staffs,". The Chaplains are to facilitate officers of the government (as people) towards their rights as outlined in principle of the second part of clause 1, towards their "free-exercize" of religion, while in operation of their duties.
Oh, I don't have a problem with the Chaplain.

It's just that anyone who opposes religion will probably want to ban it.

But would you censor anyone else if they attempted to make their speech public? Would you be in favor of censoring network television to remove any overtly sexual images? Would you be in favor of banning political speech on the radio? Would you be in favor of restricting political advertising on television?

The issue here is that if you enable a "freedom from" some kind of speech - religious or otherwise - you are forced to advocate a position that allows for censorship.

The first amendment protects us by ensuring that no matter how abhorrent our views are, as long as they don't endanger someone's life or property, we are able to say them without impediment.

So that means that yes, you may be subjected to religious speech where you would prefer not to be, but that happening is much better than the alternative.


On this you are correct. Freedom From, concept, as applied clause 1 is applicable to not being forced into religious exercize, however, it grants no rights to be "completely free" from exposure (public of otherwise) as exercized by others (under their rights). There is no such thing as being "free from" others free exercize under any particular right. Saying you have a right "not to be exposed" to religious exericize, it tantamount to censorship, as being able to be "free from" another's right to protest, to speech, or publish in the press. One's rights end where those of another begins (definitive principle). Freedom "from" extends only as far as you possess the right not to forcibly participate in the practice, not freedom from being exposed to the pratice.

Oh, I don't have a problem with the Chaplain.

It's just that anyone who opposes religion will probably want to ban it.

Good, on those that do, I must impose part 2 of clause 1 (or prohibit ther free exercize thereof); since it denies people's rights to exercize (while persuant to duties)... Since the Senators would have no access to any religious support or counceling, while the Senate is in session.

Oh, I don't have a problem with the Chaplain.

It's just that anyone who opposes religion will probably want to ban it.

This is true, but generally both parties are in agreement on issues of protocol and tradition.

Having the Chaplain or his designee open each day of business in the House and Senate is a tradition - and traditions die very, very slowly in Congress.

Actually 1st Amendment case law prohibits government using funds levied from taxes to be used to suppliment a religious institution: ( Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15 -16 [1947] ) However, the decision also held that (under benefit clause) that state funds can be used to facilitate transportation of children to and from Private Religious schools. (The same clause is used to uphold Personal Tax Waivers for those sending their children to private [religious or not] schools; since the funds are used for the benefit of the child, as opposed to the "institution".)

Ahh so noted.

Then I will change that comment to "I have no problems...."

Thanks.....

-mistake-

Ahh so noted.

Then I will change that comment to "I have no problems...."

Thanks.....

Also to note, the Court Upheld the right to use Tax funds to suppliment Religiously founded Hospitals (such as the Catholic Church is known to construct); since such institutions are considered of "public benefit" to all, as opposed to the particular institution.

This falls under the "benefit clause" whereby operations of an institution can be considered of "benefitial" to people in general, as opposed to operation an institution. Such clause has been used to support Institutions (such as CARE and the Salvation Army, which assists people in general, during tragedies, and those in states of destitution).

I have absolutely nothing against funding Religious Institutions if they bring benefit to the population
separation of church and state means that there should be no state religion, and that the laws of the state shouldn't advantage members of a certain religion or base legislation on their religious opinions
for example, the proposal of adoptions allowed only for regular christian families or the implementations of compulsory prayers in schools before the lessons is an evident violation of this principle, and those who wrote the constitution of the US surely didn't want something like this

And they could be right. Accept it.


Yes but that doesnt mean that you* should idolize them.

*I do not mean you individualy of course

That's funny, you can maim them, force them to copulate, or even artificial inseminate them, and then kill them ... but you can't have sex with them because we are protecting those that can't protect themselves? Since when do they have rights that need protecting at all? Now mayb if someone held the PETA beliefs, but then I'd rather go to civil war than submit, so, that leads no where fast.


Tangent:

The beastialty laws are very old. I remember reading of case in the 1600s. An animal could be hanged for acts of beastiality. The case involved a guy and his mare. The towns people defended the mare saying so was of good nature, etc. They hanged the guy. :D


No, that's not true. We don't do blood tests before marriage license are approved anymore becuase the folk-tale stories that you just said, baby's genetics would be messed up, etc., etc., is really just old-wives tales and utter nonsense. The scientific world has long since dropped that. If we were really worried about genetics in children, they would do blood compatibility tests for all marriage in an attempt to stop people who are more likely to produce children with defects... I really don't think thats what you meant, but that is what you said.


Half true. My wife and I did a blood test. They test for the current things with options for others. My wife check for cystic fibrosis and I didn't. She was a carrier and my family had no records of cases. Sorry but the "old wives" tales are true. Guess what? I am a carrier as well. I lost a child to the disease.

You can't force the bloods tests as it's a freedom issue. Also, considering the laws on abortion, the Religious community would not want that as if both parents find they are carriers of something, they would probably opt for abortions more often then usual.


Birth defects is NOT a valid reason to not allow inncestuous marriages, it's purely community moral code that outlaws such behaviors.

Again half true. Look what happened to the royals of europe with the inbreeding that went on........

I suggest that everyone that wants to pass that piece of mindless drivel on does some research first. Like here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

Isn't it wonderful how people accept things that fit their agenda without question ?


THANK YOU!!!!

(Now what was it I said earlier today regarding people who accept things uncritically?)

Freedom of religion means freedom from religion... as no one can force another to practice one specific religion in this country, no one can force the practice of religion in general.

Christianity is not the only religion in American. Some are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Atheist or Non-theist... the list goes on and on. The purpose of our country is to be the melting pot of all cultures, a place where people who are oppressed in the arena of religion can turn to... why, then, are we turning into a theocracy? Church and State should remain seperate, especially when fundamentalists who speak only for a small part of one religion seek to control the entire country. Even devout Christians believe in this seperation.

It doesnt mean anything of the sort. It means the state shall not establish an official religion. Nothing more, nothing less. This country is not turning into a Theocracy except in the small minds of those who cannot un-plug from the boob tube and believe the nonsense spewed by leftist media.

Thats debateable to say the least. There are many (verified) quotes or writings from some of the Founding Fathers that support some level intermixing of religion/morality into the government. Not as much Thomas Jefferson and James Madison but George Washington and the Adamses.

And yet President Adams signed the treaty of tripoli which said we were not a Christian nation.

George Washington once wrote a letter to a Jewish group to allay their fears that we were not going to be one either.

Ok, I was sent this email and I would like to see some responses to this, mostly because I'm too lazy to research it. Someone sent this to me and I'm inclined to point out the inaccuracies - it is not true that 52 of the 55 founders were Christians.

http://www.dmcgop.com/local/pr0_0728_15.shtm

DID YOU KNOW ALMOST ALL OF THIS IS LIES!

Note: no proffered that these statements are true. To the contrary, they are all false, misleading, and/or irrelevant.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

The two representations of Moses which adorn the Supreme Court building both present him in a context in which he is depicted as merely one of several historical exemplars of lawgivers, not as a religious figure.

The depiction referred to here is a sculpture entitled "Justice the Guardian of Liberty" by Hermon A. McNeil, which appears on the eastern pediment of the Supreme Court building. (The eastern pediment is the back of the Supreme Court building, so this sculpture is not something one would see "walking up the steps to the building which houses the Supreme Court." The front entrance is on the western side.) The sculpture was intended to be a symbolic representation of three of the Eastern civilizations from which our laws were derived, personified by the figures of three great lawgivers: Moses, Confucius, and Solon (surrounded by several allegorical figures representing a variety of legal themes):

[see image at http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp]


McNeil described the symbolism of his work thusly:

Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment.

Note also that the two other lawgiver figures (Confucius and Solon) are not "facing [the] one in the middle" (i.e., Moses) as claimed here — all three of the lawgivers are depicted in full frontral views, facing forward. (The allegorical figures who flank the lawgivers are facing towards the middle, but they are looking in the direction of all three men, not just Moses.)

And although many viewers might assume Moses is holding a copy of the Ten Commandments in this depiction, the two tablets in his arms are actually blank.

If this is evidence that we are a Christian nation (wouldn't it be better evidence we are a Jewish nation?), it is also evidence we are a Confucian nation.

DID YOU KNOW? As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

The doors of the Supreme Court courtroom don't literally have the "Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion" — the lower portions of the two doors are engraved with a symbolic depiction, two tablets bearing only the Roman numerals I through V and VI through X.

These Roman numerals represent the Amendments I - X of the Constitution: the Bill of Rights!

DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

The wall "right above where the Supreme Court judges sit" is the east wall, on which is displayed a frieze designed by sculptor Adolph A. Weinman. The frieze features two male figures who represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of Government, flanked on the left side by a group of figures representing Wisdom, and on the right side by a group of figures representing Justice:

[see image at link (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp)]

According to Weinman, the designer of this frieze, the tablet visible between the two central male figures, engraved with the Roman numerals I through X, represents not the Ten Commandments but the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

The friezes which adorn the north and south walls of the courtroom in the Supreme Court building (also designed by Adolph Weinman) depict a procession of 18 great lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon (north wall):

[see image at link (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp)]

According to the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court of the United States, these figures were selected as a representation of secular law:

Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, [architect Cass] Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law.

Note that Moses is not given any special emphasis in this depiction: his figure is not larger than the others, nor does it appear in a dominant position. Also, the writing on the tablet carried by Moses in this frieze includes portions of commandments 6 through 10 (in Hebrew), specifically chosen because they are not inherently religious. (Commandments 6 through 10 proscribe murder, adultery, theft, perjury, and covetousness.)

DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, DC

Perhaps. So?

Which ones? Where? Why is this relevant?

DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

This is a made-up qoute. This statement appears nowhere in the writings or recorded utterances of James Madison and is completely contradictory to his character as a strong proponent of the separation of church and state.

See also click (http://web.archive.org/web/20030620063744/http://www.au.org/press/pr4401.htm) and click (http://web.archive.org/web/20020215050032/http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs3014.htm).

DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

This is also a made-up quote. These words appear nowhere in the writings or recorded utterances of Patrick Henry. See also clicky (http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/PHenry.html).

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

* Congress has indeed retained paid (Christian) chaplains since 1789 (not 1777) to open sessions with prayer and to provide spiritual guidance to members and their staffs upon request. This practice was strongly opposed by James Madison at its inception.

*The constitutional propriety of Congressional chaplains has been challenged in an August 2002 lawsuit filed in federal district court by Michael A. Newdow. The case is still pending.

*The arguments for why this is permissible are very narrow.

* Doesn't this openly contradict the conclusion later that religion is being supressed in the U.S.?

See also clicky (http://web.archive.org/web/20030425233838/http://www.au.org/field/actionalerts/congressionalchaplains.htm).

DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

The diverse beliefs and religiosity of America's founding fathers is a complex subject, one which cannot be so neatly encapsulated by an (inadequately substantiated) statement such as the one quoted above.

DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law. An oligarchy.
the rule of few over many.

Yes, so were many of the Founders. They provided for checks and balances.

So? This is relevant how?

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

Sort of.

John Jay, one of the framers of the Constitution, was appointed by George Washington in 1789 to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (and later served two terms as governor of New York). He wrote, in a private letter (1797) to clergyman Jedidiah Morse:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire.

Of course, the Constitution expressly forbids a religious test for office. But every American -- including every Founder -- is free to prefer to vote whomever they like for whatever reason.

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

LOL.

This hysterical statement is utterly divorced from reality.

The First Amendment has been the law of the land since 1789. The Supreme Court has expressly endorsed the phrase "wall of separation of Church and State" as an accurate summary of the First Amendment since at least 1887 -- almost 120 years.

Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn...
It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

If you agree, pass this on

We don't live in a pure democracy or a theocracy. The Founders were horrified by both.

Religion has thrived in the U.S. because of, not despite of, the First Amendment.

Banning the right to pray in a classroom is infringing on the right to excersize religion freely, and is therefore unconstitutional. If I want to pray silently by myself, then I'll pray, damnit.

And nobody has even implied that that right should be taken away. In a public classroom, student-led prayer is acceptable. As long as it is not an agent of the school, essentially a state employee, prayer in the classroom is allowed. But no teacher should be leading the prayer. Religious activity should not be in any way school-sponsored or discouraged.

(I do believe, however, that a teacher should be allowed to wear a cross, a Star of David, a chalice. Being teachers doesn't mean that they must deny their religion, they just aren't supposed to proselytize.)

Tangent:

The beastialty laws are very old. I remember reading of case in the 1600s. An animal could be hanged for acts of beastiality. The case involved a guy and his mare. The towns people defended the mare saying so was of good nature, etc. They hanged the guy. :D

:D



Half true. My wife and I did a blood test. They test for the current things with options for others. My wife check for cystic fibrosis and I didn't. She was a carrier and my family had no records of cases. Sorry but the "old wives" tales are true. Guess what? I am a carrier as well. I lost a child to the disease.

You can't force the bloods tests as it's a freedom issue. Also, considering the laws on abortion, the Religious community would not want that as if both parents find they are carriers of something, they would probably opt for abortions more often then usual. Birth defects being brought on via carrier genes was not the issue. Saying that incestuous marriages causes more genetic issues was what I said wasn't true.


Again half true. Look what happened to the royals of europe with the inbreeding that went on........ No, just because they had a small community of genetic carriers and they kept it going via not breeding 'out' of it, does not in itself prove that we outlaw incestuous marriages in America because it 'might' increase the chance of birth defects.

The moral code of communities are the only reason, and rightly so IMO, that we can agree to out law unseemly behaviors.

My real point is trying to force everyone to agree that there IS a line, and that we really need to discuss where to place the line. The line does exist, without a community accepted line, there is chaos.

I, with others, have the right to form a community that is NOT chaos, and defend that community with constitutional laws. The constitution does not deter that, it promotes it.

Now, where does the line go?

Did you know that the separation of church and state is a highly propagated myth. There is no such law found in the constitution.

ROTFLASTC

The words "separation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution.

But the First Amendment does. The phrase "wall of separation of Church and State" is merely a summary -- a metaphor -- for the First Amendment that was used by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and has been used by the Supreme Court since 1887.

But would you censor anyone else if they attempted to make their speech public?

A speech in public is protected. I don't have to listen to it so I can walk away. Now if the person say blocked traffic or an entrance to a building.....


Would you be in favor of censoring network television to remove any overtly sexual images?

To a point yes. Such imagery probably doesn't need to happen during cartoon hour.


Would you be in favor of banning political speech on the radio? Would you be in favor of restricting political advertising on television?

Again I don't have to listen to it so I can change the channel.


The issue here is that if you enable a "freedom from" some kind of speech - religious or otherwise - you are forced to advocate a position that allows for censorship.

You misunderstand. Freedom from simply means I don't have to listen to religion if I don't want to. As such, places like a class session should not have a prayer time.


The first amendment protects us by ensuring that no matter how abhorrent our views are, as long as they don't endanger someone's life or property, we are able to say them without impediment.

So that means that yes, you may be subjected to religious speech where you would prefer not to be, but that happening is much better than the alternative.

The difference is that you have the choice. I pay taxes and as such I don't want them to be used to endorse Christianity. I don't want my leaders promoting Christianity.

You can say your message and preech your moral code, but you don't have the right to expect me to listen to it or live it.

Liverbreath']It doesnt mean anything of the sort. It means the state shall not establish an official religion. Nothing more, nothing less. This country is not turning into a Theocracy except in the small minds of those who cannot un-plug from the boob tube and believe the nonsense spewed by leftist media.

The Supreme Court long ago explained this far better than I ever could.

Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ), 330 US 1 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

Liverbreath']It doesnt mean anything of the sort. It means the state shall not establish an official religion. Nothing more, nothing less. This country is not turning into a Theocracy except in the small minds of those who cannot un-plug from the boob tube and believe the nonsense spewed by leftist media.

Ahhh somebody needs to read more about the writings of the people. Madison in particular.

If Madison talks about the wall and your religious "historian" says there is no such thing.

Who is right?

As to the theocracy, well we are closer to it then ever before.

Hmmm "leftist media?"

What did you say about small minds beliving everything they read or hear?

Thats debateable to say the least. There are many (verified) quotes or writings from some of the Founding Fathers that support some level intermixing of religion/morality into the government. Not as much Thomas Jefferson and James Madison but George Washington and the Adamses.

Sorry, but there is a difference between believing religion or morality should play a role in how we govern ourselves and being against the separation of Church and State.

As I said, the First Amendment prohibits the latter.

Although there was a smattering of sentiments toward establishment of religion among some of the Founders, such opinions are -- at best -- a small minority. The Founders were not Gods. The Alien and Sedition Acts are a good example.

That the Founders were neither perfect nor uniform in their beliefs is a good reason why "original intent" jurisprudence is impractical, as well as foolhardy.

Nonetheless, the original intent of the First Amendment is one of the clearest cases: separation of Church and State.

Nonetheless, the original intent of the First Amendment is one of the clearest cases: separation of Church and State.
Cat, I think we need a "sticky" topic at the top of the forum, because I hate to go back and show people Jefferson's letter to the people who were afraid that our government would establish a religion.

This is a topic that doesn't need to be debated anymore.

Birth defects being brought on via carrier genes was not the issue. Saying that incestuous marriages causes more genetic issues was what I said wasn't true.


Ahhh me bad.....


No, just because they had a small community of genetic carriers and they kept it going via not breeding 'out' of it, does not in itself prove that we outlaw incestuous marriages in America because it 'might' increase the chance of birth defects.

The moral code of communities are the only reason, and rightly so IMO, that we can agree to out law unseemly behaviors.


True but the "moral" code is not universal and it changes. It was fine to have 20+ children once. Now the community looks down on it. It was fine to marry a young girl(still is in some cultures), now the community looks down on it.

Didn't the moral code say slavery was ok?

When you start preeching morality; whose interpretation do you follow?


My real point is trying to force everyone to agree that there IS a line, and that we really need to discuss where to place the line. The line does exist, without a community accepted line, there is chaos.

I, with others, have the right to form a community that is NOT chaos, and defend that community with constitutional laws. The constitution does not deter that, it promotes it.

Now, where does the line go?

Isn't the line called the wall that seperates? ;)

There is a differnce between saying our laws were guided by Christianity and saying our laws were influenced by aspects of Christianity. The statues in the SCOTUS handle it perfectly......

But not to the extreme that librals are taking now, example: The ACLU trying to ban all Boy Scouts from government land and such because they mention god in an oath they take when they join.

Utter and complete lie.

This is neither what the ACLU and Boy Scouts have been fighting over nor why.

The Boy Scouts declared themselves a private religious institution in order to claim an exemption from laws against discrimination. They prevailed in this argument before the Supreme Court.

As a sectarian religious group, the Boy Scouts cannot be given direct government support or preferential treatment. The ACLU has successfully challenged only such preferential treatment because it is the government using tax money to favor a specific religious group.

At the same time, the ACLU has fought to protect the rights of the Boy Scouts to equal acess to public lands and institutions, such as schools.

And they could be right. Accept it.
Bad response. You Americans act as if they not only could be right, but that they are infallible. Can you accept that they were imperfect?

*passes this on*

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
What's the difference? Don't people have the freedom to be atheists?

Cat, I think we need a "sticky" topic at the top of the forum, because I hate to go back and show people Jefferson's letter to the people who were afraid that our government would establish a religion.

This is a topic that doesn't need to be debated anymore.

:D

I wish. This one of those issues that people just don't get.

Where the wall of separation should be is sometimes damn tricky and a very legitimate point of debate.

Theoretically, one could debate whether there should be a wall, but most reasonable minds agree with Madison that both religion and government are better off by the separation.

That our Constitution establishes a wall of separation is not really debatable.

Even if that's true (ton of it isn't), people should just get over it - so it's not strict separation of church & state, and some religious symbols made it into our government.

Stop whining! It's freedom of religion (or lack thereof), not freedom *from* - -_-

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Isn't the line called the wall that seperates? ;)


That line, moves. It still moves, maybe it needs to be moved now. But, if there is a line that moves too quickly it is in fact called 'mob-rule.' and to protect against that, we have to make it hard to move.

However, to avoid having to use my same example again, a polygamist, incestuous practitioner of bestiality suing for freedom of religion, we need to recognise the community's right to exist as a 'religious' community or not. As in, Nevada does not need to have the same laws as Georgia. The city district does not need to have the same laws as the rural county courthouse... And yet, they can all be Americans with constitutional protections.

If so-and-so community has a citizens funded holiday display on public property in one community and another is held in a different community, and no one anywhere is told they can't display theirs, then why do I need to ask what religions they are?

The community has the right to celebrate. The Atheist does not have the right to insist on driving down small town Hicksville’s main street without seeing any Christmas lights. He wasn't warranted such protection in the constitution.

While I do not like the rise in fundamentalism here in the US, I can understand why it's happening. The extreme wing of the Left has been pushing to get their agenda into law for 40 years and have largely been successful. They have been pushing REALLY hard and openly for 10-15 years. The fundies have gotten sick of it and decided to push back.

Honestly, the rise of fundamentalism in the US can be directly attributed to the fact that Leftists have tried to push their agenda to the extreme too far, too fast. They really have no one to blame but themselves for the "Rise of the Fundies™".
There is no extreme left wing in America! Or at least none with a voice!

I assume you're talking about secularism. America is not even as secular as most places in Europe and we don't have a fundamentalist backlash. I think you should tell your fundies to stop blaming liberals and take responsibility for their own actions. There's something wrong with your fundies.

Also, secularism =/= persecution of Christians.


in Europe now there's a slow return to the left-wing values, while in the US I see that the situation has changed in the opposite direction
No, that's not the case. Europe was on the left for about 50 years. Only now, we're starting to adopt more liberal market policies. We're becoming less socialist.

There is a line, where it belongs and where we put it, is not as clear cut as some anti-free-exercise-of-religion people would have you believe.

There is a point when the community’s right to share and celebrate common beliefs as a community are infringed upon to the detriment of the community...
Seriously, who is banning religion?

The founders also were afraid of democracy, and were worried it would lead to anarchy.
They were right there. Direct Democracy would lead to a dictatorship of the proletariat and tyranny by majority.

The community has the right to celebrate. The Atheist does not have the right to insist on driving down small town Hicksville’s main street without seeing any Christmas lights. He wasn't warranted such protection in the constitution.

Nobody has said he does have that protection. Did I miss something?

They were right there. Direct Democracy would lead to a dictatorship of the proletariat and tyranny by majority.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule ...."
-Jefferson

This is also a made-up quote. These words appear nowhere in the writings or recorded utterances of Patrick Henry. See also clicky (http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/PHenry.html).


Actually, on that one I have to beg to differ. Patrick Henry did utter a similtude of that statement (though it is inacurately worded) in May 1776 encouraging the ratification of Virginia's Constitution (ARticle I, possessing the Bill of Rights) in light of support of Section 16, under the Virginia Bill of Rights:


That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

The complete statement of support uttered by Henry (in seat in the House of Burgesses) was "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." The omission of the last line makes the usage deceptive. Henry ardently opposed state religion, state sanctioned religious discipline, and the like. Henry's quote regarding "gospel of Jesus Christ" is inline with the principle of "christian forbearance" as known in the Commonwealth, and in general amongst the Anglican and Episopalian Churches in Virginia, the principle of brotherly love, forbarance and patience, as well as the principle of the "liberty" of men persuant to their own religious convictions. 1776 marked the end of the State sanctioning of the Anglican church in Virginia. And the opening of the state under the ideals of Christian liberty (to and for men)... indeed extending past mere "Christianity" as an institution. An appeal to the "foundation" of the Christian beliefs, and not it's institutions. Patrick Henry was far more "Christian" than most of the people who use that quote deceptively, trying to sanction religious enforcement by the government (as the Burgess, and later Govenor Henry, opposed).

In no way would I feel them meeting and praying would be infringing on my belief. As long as they aren't bashing me or my belief in their verbally spoken prayers.

Says someone who is not likely to be in the minority to a completely theoretical scenario.

Thats debateable to say the least. There are many (verified) quotes or writings from some of the Founding Fathers that support some level intermixing of religion/morality into the government. Not as much Thomas Jefferson and James Madison but George Washington and the Adamses.

Good, then you should have no problem finding them. And explaining why in the federalist papers and in the constitution they so clearly drew a line.

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn...
It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

87% of all americans are non-black (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)
Why don't you take "I am not black." into your Pledge of Allegiance?

That's funny, you can maim them, force them to copulate, or even artificial inseminate them, and then kill them ... but you can't have sex with them because we are protecting those that can't protect themselves? Since when do they have rights that need protecting at all? Now mayb if someone held the PETA beliefs, but then I'd rather go to civil war than submit, so, that leads no where fast.

Doing so for a food source and doing so for fun and pleasure are hardly comparable. Most people agree (whether religious or no) that people should be punished for beastiality and abuse to animals. If they have no rights, then what is the basis for this?

No, that's not true. We don't do blood tests before marriage license are approved anymore becuase the folk-tale stories that you just said, baby's genetics would be messed up, etc., etc., is really just old-wives tales and utter nonsense. The scientific world has long since dropped that. If we were really worried about genetics in children, they would do blood compatibility tests for all marriage in an attempt to stop people who are more likely to produce children with defects... I really don't think thats what you meant, but that is what you said.

Birth defects is NOT a valid reason to not allow inncestuous marriages, it's purely community moral code that outlaws such behaviors.

Here is an article supporting your statement, yet in the article they point out that the chance of birth defect in a marriage of cousins nearly doubles from the norm of 3-4% to 4-7%. That seems to invalidate your point that it's 'utter nonsense'. In fact, it seems to be fully supported by evidence. Whether 7% is enough to justify outlawing it is in question, but it certainly isn't just a wives' tale.

Particularly this line of the article seems to dispute your point - "(except in North Carolina, which creates an exception for cousin couples that have undergone genetic counseling)."

87% of all americans are non-black (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)
Why don't you take "I am not black." into your Pledge of Allegiance?

For the record, I disagreed with the email and it is clear that the US Constitution protects against tyranny by majority.

Psst -- the fact that the Founding Fathers started your country doesn't mean they were perfect. Seriously, you guys have way too much of a hero complex built up around them. They were only human. They could be wrong. Accept it.


no...............Christian church cant be wrong

But would you censor anyone else if they attempted to make their speech public? Would you be in favor of censoring network television to remove any overtly sexual images? Would you be in favor of banning political speech on the radio? Would you be in favor of restricting political advertising on television?

The issue here is that if you enable a "freedom from" some kind of speech - religious or otherwise - you are forced to advocate a position that allows for censorship.

The first amendment protects us by ensuring that no matter how abhorrent our views are, as long as they don't endanger someone's life or property, we are able to say them without impediment.

So that means that yes, you may be subjected to religious speech where you would prefer not to be, but that happening is much better than the alternative.

Ridiculous. We are talking about in places like schools, courts, public buildings, etc. You're damn right I would have a problem with my neices and nephews watching some network television in school. That's not censorship, that's being responsible. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you, wherever you want.

DID YOU KNOW ALMOST ALL OF THIS IS LIES!

*snip*

We don't live in a pure democracy or a theocracy. The Founders were horrified by both.

Religion has thrived in the U.S. because of, not despite of, the First Amendment.

I just want to make it clear that I do not support this email. I was looking for people to dispute the email for me so I wouldn't have to research it.

I stated earlier that separation of church and state protects the church AND the state.

A speech in public is protected. I don't have to listen to it so I can walk away. Now if the person say blocked traffic or an entrance to a building.....

The reason why it's protected isn't because you have the ability to walk away. It's because the speech does not infringe upon your rights - it doesn't incite someone to kill you or destroy your property. Whether or not you are a captive audience is immaterial.

To a point yes. Such imagery probably doesn't need to happen during cartoon hour.

And this can easily be accomplished through public opinion, rather than regulation.

Again I don't have to listen to it so I can change the channel.

You're still missing the point. Censoring opinions that you disagree with because you don't want to listen to them is still censorship, whether or not it is done because there is no way to not hear the offending speech.

You misunderstand. Freedom from simply means I don't have to listen to religion if I don't want to. As such, places like a class session should not have a prayer time.

That's true - you don't have to listen. Even in a classroom, the ability to ignore what you don't want to hear is yours. But claiming that you have a right to not be subjected to anything you wish to not hear gives others the same right - and the end result is censorship.


The difference is that you have the choice. I pay taxes and as such I don't want them to be used to endorse Christianity. I don't want my leaders promoting Christianity.

Then you can vote them out of office. But, unfortunately, there are many things that the government pays for that I don't agree with that my taxes go to pay for. No one has that kind of choice, even members of Congress.

You can say your message and preech your moral code, but you don't have the right to expect me to listen to it or live it.

That's the point - no one is saying you have to listen or live with it. Advocating a freedom 'from' philosophy is advocating that those who wish to preach be denied their right to do so. That's wrong.

B

Ridiculous. We are talking about in places like schools, courts, public buildings, etc. You're damn right I would have a problem with my neices and nephews watching some network television in school. That's not censorship, that's being responsible. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you, wherever you want.

The post was talking about religious writing on public buildings and such. I wasn't arguing for prayer in schools. What I am arguing is that there should be no "freedom from" provisions - they are inherently censorous. Those that typically argue against religious speech tend to argue against other forms of censorship, which is an inherently hypocritical argument.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, whereever you want. It gives you the right to express yourself in whatever way you choose, so long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights (meaning, property and safety) of others.

Being forced to hear a prayer at a graduation, etc. causes no one any legitimate harm. The fact that some people are unable to accept the religious beliefs of others and seek to censor them is no better than those who wish to ban books and movies, or ban political speech on the radio or television.

Those who hate religion because of its "intolerance" tend to fail to see the intolernance inherent in their own arguments. Its interesting.

The reason why it's protected isn't because you have the ability to walk away. It's because the speech does not infringe upon your rights - it doesn't incite someone to kill you or destroy your property. Whether or not you are a captive audience is immaterial.

And this can easily be accomplished through public opinion, rather than regulation.

You're still missing the point. Censoring opinions that you disagree with because you don't want to listen to them is still censorship, whether or not it is done because there is no way to not hear the offending speech.

That's true - you don't have to listen. Even in a classroom, the ability to ignore what you don't want to hear is yours. But claiming that you have a right to not be subjected to anything you wish to not hear gives others the same right - and the end result is censorship.

Then you can vote them out of office. But, unfortunately, there are many things that the government pays for that I don't agree with that my taxes go to pay for. No one has that kind of choice, even members of Congress.

That's the point - no one is saying you have to listen or live with it. Advocating a freedom 'from' philosophy is advocating that those who wish to preach be denied their right to do so. That's wrong.

B

Not having the the Bible, the Quran, books on tantric sex, the rantings of Charles Manson in the school library is not censorship. You make the point that we don't limit what captive audiences are subjected to, but we in fact do. I cannot be forced to view sexual images or listen to certain philosophies or any of those things. There is the exception of sex education which some would argue shows children overtly sexual images that inappropriate for the classroom. This is why children are allowed to opt out of sexual education if it interferes with their moral and religious beliefs.

Hey, just thought I'd mention that Jesus supposedly supported the separation of Church and State.

The post was talking about religious writing on public buildings and such. I wasn't arguing for prayer in schools. What I am arguing is that there should be no "freedom from" provisions - they are inherently censorous. Those that typically argue against religious speech tend to argue against other forms of censorship, which is an inherently hypocritical argument.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, whereever you want. It gives you the right to express yourself in whatever way you choose, so long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights (meaning, property and safety) of others.

Being forced to hear a prayer at a graduation, etc. causes no one any legitimate harm. The fact that some people are unable to accept the religious beliefs of others and seek to censor them is no better than those who wish to ban books and movies, or ban political speech on the radio or television.

Those who hate religion because of its "intolerance" tend to fail to see the intolernance inherent in their own arguments. Its interesting.

I don't hate religion. I respect a person's right to enjoy porn, but it better not appear in classrooms or on the walls of a courtroom. I would argue vehemently against censorship of certain websites in regards to what is viewed in the privacy of one's home and just as vehemently that those websites should not be available in the local library. It's not contradictory is the difference between respecting the rights of the individual to express an idea and the rights of an individual to not be forced to listen to that individual expressing that idea. However what you do on your property, so long as you don't disturb the peace, is your business.

Hey, just thought I'd mention that Jesus supported the separation of Church and State.

I mentioned that earlier. He wanted it to be so to protect religion.

Doing so for a food source and doing so for fun and pleasure are hardly comparable. Most people agree (whether religious or no) that people should be punished for beastiality and abuse to animals. If they have no rights, then what is the basis for this?
My point was that without community 'morality' and community held religious beliefs, we wouldn't have those laws, or if we did have them, and we were not able to recognize the community moral code as a standard with some amount of rights on it's own, then we wouldn't be able to outlaw such behavior. Obviously, we do have moral, religious or otherwise, laws of conduct that we expect our community member to behave by.

And, more than that, I suggest, that this is a good thing. That trying to take the ultra-extreme view of separation of Church and State, that no reference to any religion at all is neither what the founding fathers meant nor probably what would be good for us. I propose, that I have a right to find a place in America that I can raise my kids without having to be confronted by a barrage of illicit, indecent, immoral laxity, just because some people today think that all 'morality conduct laws' might be religiously based, because I admit they are... And I support our right to have them anyway, and I think constitution never intended to take that away from us.

But I do agree that the line that is drawn with moral conduct laws does and should move from time to time... I'm not trying to pretend that it's a simple issue.

The post was talking about religious writing on public buildings and such. I wasn't arguing for prayer in schools. What I am arguing is that there should be no "freedom from" provisions - they are inherently censorous. Those that typically argue against religious speech tend to argue against other forms of censorship, which is an inherently hypocritical argument.Well, yes, but they are arguing for both freedomm of religion and freedom from religion.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, whereever you want. It gives you the right to express yourself in whatever way you choose, so long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights (meaning, property and safety) of others.Yes it does. It ought to anyway. The only restrictions are because of a thing called common sense.

Being forced to hear a prayer at a graduation, etc. causes no one any legitimate harm. The fact that some people are unable to accept the religious beliefs of others and seek to censor them is no better than those who wish to ban books and movies, or ban political speech on the radio or television. Yes, but being forced to hear a prayer at graduation is offensive to people such as atheists, Muslims, Jews, etc. (since such prayers are invariably Christian in the USA). Political speech, on the other hand, is not offensive. I'm not mad that what you're typing differs from my views.

Those who hate religion because of its "intolerance" tend to fail to see the intolernance inherent in their own arguments. Its interesting.Religion always tends to be intolerant. Holocaust? Huguenot massacres? Anti-religionists never seem to get so violent. I wonder why.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I mentioned that earlier. He wanted it to be so to protect religion.
What does it matter why He wanted it that way? And how do you know He wanted it so to protect religion? All the information we have about Him is, at best, second-hand. He may not have actually said anything like, "Give what to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's."

My point was that without community 'morality' and community held religious beliefs, we wouldn't have those laws, or if we did have them, and we were not able to recognize the community moral code as a standard with some amount of rights on it's own, then we wouldn't be able to outlaw such behavior. Obviously, we do have moral, religious or otherwise, laws of conduct that we expect our community member to behave by.You're equating religion with morality, and they're not the same. I'm an atheist and I have a perfectly good sense of right and wrong.
And, more than that, I suggest, that this is a good thing. That trying to take the ultra-extreme view of separation of Church and State, that no reference to any religion at all is neither what the founding fathers meant nor probably what would be good for us. I propose, that I have a right to find a place in America that I can raise my kids without having to be confronted by a barrage of illicit, indecent, immoral laxity, just because some people today think that all 'morality conduct laws' might be religiously based, because I admit they are... And I support our right to have them anyway, and I think constitution never intended to take that away from us.*raises eyebrows* Since when is the separation of church and state seen as "ultra-extreme"?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I don't hate religion. I respect a person's right to enjoy porn, but it better not appear in classrooms or on the walls of a courtroom. I would argue vehemently against censorship of certain websites in regards to what is viewed in the privacy of one's home and just as vehemently that those websites should not be available in the local library. It's not contradictory is the difference between respecting the rights of the individual to express an idea and the rights of an individual to not be forced to listen to that individual expressing that idea. However what you do on your property, so long as you don't disturb the peace, is your business.Yes. I agree that people should not force their beliefs on others. However, they still have a right to express those beliefs, in rallies, on shirts, whatever. Symbolic speech is quite important.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

What does it matter why He wanted it that way? And how do you know He wanted it so to protect religion? All the information we have about Him is, at best, second-hand. He may not have actually said anything like, "Give what to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's."

My point is that religious people who think that God should be all over in the government are not following their own bible. In the bible, Jesus' teaching make it clear that the Church should be separate from the state and that it is to keep religion free from politics. If you believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God and that the book about him cannot contain mistakes how do you justify blurring that line? You don't.

You're equating religion with morality, and they're not the same. I'm an atheist and I have a perfectly good sense of right and wrong. I didn't say anything of the sort... Read the premise, don't just shout off and make your own nonsensical sound-bites.


*raises eyebrows* Since when is the separation of church and state seen as "ultra-extreme"?
~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Taking things out of context and making simpliton accusation does exactly how much good for your cause and advances your point of view, how? You didn't even respond to the entire sentence... You selected a section of one sentence which was in a paragraph, but decided to pin point that?

I just want to make it clear that I do not support this email. I was looking for people to dispute the email for me so I wouldn't have to research it.

I stated earlier that separation of church and state protects the church AND the state.

I realized that. I was responding to the content and not to you. You made clear in your original post that you thought the e-mail was untrue.

While I do not like the rise in fundamentalism here in the US, I can understand why it's happening. The extreme wing of the Left has been pushing to get their agenda into law for 40 years and have largely been successful. They have been pushing REALLY hard and openly for 10-15 years. The fundies have gotten sick of it and decided to push back.

Honestly, the rise of fundamentalism in the US can be directly attributed to the fact that Leftists have tried to push their agenda to the extreme too far, too fast. They really have no one to blame but themselves for the "Rise of the Fundies™".

ROTFLASTC.

Man, people say the silliest things when it comes to religion. :D

Christian fundamentalism in the US arose a bit further back than 40 years ago. It has been fighting "the Leftists" for over 100 years. :rolleyes:

I realized that. I was responding to the content and not to you. You made clear in your original post that you thought the e-mail was untrue.

Not to everyone, in another thread Glorious Discordia said that my belief that rape would not cease to exist if only ccw were allowed goes against my conservative Christian beliefs expressed here. I'm glad to see someone was paying attention. ;)

The reason why it's protected isn't because you have the ability to walk away. It's because the speech does not infringe upon your rights - it doesn't incite someone to kill you or destroy your property. Whether or not you are a captive audience is immaterial.


No that is not true. Captive audiences are taken into consideration. Why is preaching disallowed in schools? Why don't we have to subject our children in lessons to save their souls?

The fact that you don't have listen to a sermon is freedom from religion. If given the chance the more religious members of congress would not hesitate to make conditions for such "lessons" when getting governmental aid.

Free Speech does not give you the right to walk into my business and start preaching to my employees.


And this can easily be accomplished through public opinion, rather than regulation.

Actually regulation is needed to prevent a vocal minority from controlling things (ie: immoral themes during adult hours for TV). There are religious groups that routinely harass companies and stations that show things they do not like.


You're still missing the point. Censoring opinions that you disagree with because you don't want to listen to them is still censorship, whether or not it is done because there is no way to not hear the offending speech.


No censorship is preventing such things from being on TV or the radio. It is my right to change the channel if I don't like it.

It is not censorship when you don't allow Christians to preach in classrooms. My child's spiritual well being is my responsibility; not yours.


That's true - you don't have to listen. Even in a classroom, the ability to ignore what you don't want to hear is yours. But claiming that you have a right to not be subjected to anything you wish to not hear gives others the same right - and the end result is censorship.

Ahh you must be a Christian. No the establishment clause says government and church are separate. As such the public school will not allow any religion to preach to children at class time(excluding religions class, and private religious schools).

The fact you are a christian does not give you the right to have your religion being preeched to me in school. I could be a buddist or a muslim. Why do I have to listen to your prayers?

School time is for learning.

Churches/mosques/synagoges/whatever are for your spiritual well being.

Silent prayer is fine. Asking for a room to hold prayers is fine. Expecting me to have my class time taken up with a public prayer is wrong.


Then you can vote them out of office. But, unfortunately, there are many things that the government pays for that I don't agree with that my taxes go to pay for. No one has that kind of choice, even members of Congress.


No sorry. You are there to run the country. No promote an religious ideology.


That's the point - no one is saying you have to listen or live with it. Advocating a freedom 'from' philosophy is advocating that those who wish to preach be denied their right to do so. That's wrong.


No one is denying you the right to preach. You just can't have a captive audience to do it.

The post was talking about religious writing on public buildings and such. I wasn't arguing for prayer in schools. What I am arguing is that there should be no "freedom from" provisions - they are inherently censorious. Those that typically argue against religious speech tend to argue against other forms of censorship, which is an inherently hypocritical argument.


I doubt that. Do you see them saying you can't have Sunday preachers on TV?

You are not arguing for prayer in school? Then what is your censorship talk about?


Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, wherever you want. It gives you the right to express yourself in whatever way you choose, so long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights (meaning, property and safety) of others.

Ok.


Being forced to hear a prayer at a graduation, etc. causes no one any legitimate harm.

If a public school only allows for a Christian prayer, it is an endorsement of a religion. Remember Religious Neutral.

The fact that some people are unable to accept the religious beliefs of others and seek to censor them is no better than those who wish to ban books and movies, or ban political speech on the radio or television.


Ewww that is good. The victim argument. It's funny that you try to lump people who prevent Christians from preaching to a captive audience with the very Christians how routinely seek the censorship of questionable material.

Sorry doesn't fly.

You want Religion in the government and in the schools, then get a grass roots campaign to change the Constitution.


Those who hate religion because of its "intolerance" tend to fail to see the intolerance inherent in their own arguments. Its interesting.

It's not a question of hating religion. That's a Christian argument. "You won't allow me to evangelize your children in school so you must hate religion."

You don't see the defenders of the establishment clause trying to close down churches. Prevent preachers from being on TV or radio. Yet you see the "faithful" always trying to censor books and tv programming.

My point was that without community 'morality' and community held religious beliefs, *SNIP*

Ahhh so morality only comes from religion?

Ahhh so morality only comes from religion?
Yup, prove it doesn't.

Yup, prove it doesn't.
I'm atheist and I'm more moral then most "christians" at my school (don't drink, don't smoke, don't have premarital sex...)

Taking things out of context and making simpleton accusation does exactly how much good for your cause and advances your point of view, how? You didn't even respond to the entire sentence... You selected a section of one sentence which was in a paragraph, but decided to pin point that?

A simply phrase carries a great deal of meaning.

And, more than that, I suggest, that this is a good thing. That trying to take the ultra-extreme view of separation of Church and State, that no reference to any religion at all is neither what the founding fathers meant nor probably what would be good for us. I propose, that I have a right to find a place in America that I can raise my kids without having to be confronted by a barrage of illicit, indecent, immoral laxity, just because some people today think that all 'morality conduct laws' might be religiously based, because I admit they are... And I support our right to have them anyway, and I think constitution never intended to take that away from us.

You have labeled it view by declaring it extreme by saying people actively remove all religious references. They are removed if such a reference favors or endorses a particular religion. In one case(I think Texas or was it Kentucky) there is a 10 commandments case involving a statue. The usual it doesn't harm, etc. arguments are being used. You look at the statue, it has giant text for only one of the commandments. "You shall have no other gods before Me" It was declared an endorsement of a religion and has to be removed.

Finally, how does your right to not want "illicitly, indecent, immoral laxity" override my rights to have that? What you don't like doesn't mean I don't like it.

The Constitution was designed to keep the state from sponsoring or supporting one religion. Jefferson and Madison were the chief architects and they frequently spoke of the separation.

It doesn't matter what religion the founding fathers were, they still made it clear they tought seperation of church and state was very important. Though many of them were Deists, not Chistians.

BTW, I consider myself a very moral atheist. Sorry if some people can't be moral without the carrot and stick act, but lots of us can.

The constitution does not say that no law can give benefit to religion, or else they couldn't be tax-exempt now could they? You exaggerate perhaps to make your point? They would need to be regulated and taxed by the government if they couldn't be favored. Your simple solution fails to provide a satisfactory answer to for the problem.

:headbang:

You've got it bass-ackwards. Part of the reasons why churches are tax-exempt is to avoid government entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.

The Constitution does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So, no, government cannot pass laws specifically to benefit a religion. That is one of the main frickin' points!

As for tax exemptions, you are all wet. I'll let Findlaw explain:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#1
Tax Exemptions of Religious Property .-- Every State and the District of Columbia provide for tax exemptions for religious institutions, and the history of such exemptions goes back to the time of our establishment as a polity. The only expression by a Supreme Court Justice prior to 1970 was by Justice Brennan, who deemed tax exemptions constitutional because the benefit conferred was incidental to the religious character of the institutions concerned. See Abington School Dist. v. Schempp (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=374&invol=203#301), 374 U.S. 203, 301 (1963) (concurring opinion) (''If religious institutions benefit, it is in spite of rather than because of their religious character. For religious institutions simply share benefits which government makes generally available to educational, charitable, and eleemosynary groups.'').

Then, in 1970, a nearly unanimous Court sustained a state exemption from real or personal property taxation of ''property used exclusively for religious, educational or charitable purposes'' owned by a corporation or association which was conducted exclusively for one or more of these purposes and did not operate for profit. Walz v. Tax Comm'n (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=397&invol=664), 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The first prong of a two-prong argument saw the Court adopting Justice Brennan's rationale. Using the secular purpose and effect test, Chief Justice Burger noted that the purpose of the exemption was not to single out churches for special favor; instead, the exemption applied to a broad category of associations having many common features and all dedicated to social betterment. Thus, churches as well as museums, hospitals, libraries, charitable organizations, professional associations, and the like, all non-profit, and all having a beneficial and stabilizing influence in community life, were to be encouraged by being treated specially in the tax laws. The primary effect of the exemptions was not to aid religion; the primary effect was secular and any assistance to religion was merely incidental. Id. at 672-74.

For the second prong, the Court created a new test, the entanglement test, by which to judge the program. There was some entanglement whether there were exemptions or not, Chief Justice Burger continued, but with exemptions there was minimal involvement. But termination of exemptions would deeply involve government in the internal affairs of religious bodies, because evaluation of religious properties for tax purposes would be required and there would be tax liens and foreclosures and litigation concerning such matters. 397 U.S. at 674 -76.

While the general issue is now settled, it is to be expected that variations of the exemption upheld in Walz will present the Court with an opportunity to elaborate the field still further. For example, the Court determined that a sales tax exemption applicable only to religious publications constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause, Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=489&invol=1), 489 U.S. 1 (1989), and, on the other hand, that application of a general sales and use tax provision to religious publications violates neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. California Bd. of Equalization (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=493&invol=378), 493 U.S. 378 (1990); Hernandez v. Commissioner (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=490&invol=680), 490 U.S. 680 (1989).

**** the MORE you KNOW ****

The separation of church and state is a concept, likely intended to a degree, much differently interpreted by different readers. Much like the 2nd amendment was intended to explicitly say something one way or the other but now people fight all the time about what it means to execute that amendment...

You have really got to stop relying on your own personal reading of snippets of the Constitution and assuming they are law.

It has been about 214 years since the First and Second Amendments became the law of the land. It has been about 137 years since the Fourteenth Amendment made parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

The Supreme Court -- and the rest of the judiciary -- have done a tad of thinking on the issues during that time.

I know some of you liked to throw away the centuries of caselaw in order to establish a different Republic than the one we have. Find your own island.

But the truth is, the first amendment does NOT say we can't base laws on religious ideology if the community agrees with them.

This statement is actually true.

Such as polygamy, incest (between adults) and bestiality. These are laws we enacted because of our community religious and moral beliefs. Otherwise an incestuous deist would be able to sue the state not just because we infringe on his right to marry his two sister and copulate with his livestock, but we infringe on his religious beliefs in doing so as well...

Setting aside your quaint beliefs about the origins of our laws and your inflammatory statements, the Supreme Court has developed a balancing test to determine when a uniform, nondiscriminatory requirement by government mandating action or nonaction by citizens must allow exceptions for citizens whose religious scruples forbid compliance. Employment Division v. Smith (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=494&invol=872), 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

As a general rule, the Free Exercise Clause does not require exemptions from generally applicable criminal laws. Id. Criminal laws are ''generally applicable'' when they apply across the board regardless of the religious motivation of the prohibited conduct, and are ''not specifically directed at . . . religious practices.'' Id. at 878.

Obviously there IS a line that the communities in America cannot cross, but it does exist. They ARE allowed to share some religious community standards… where does it belong? Well, somewhere in-between the two extremes I suppose.

Your understanding of the separation of Chuch and State is hopelessly confused. Because of the separation, any individual can have or group of individuals can share whatever religious beliefs they want. They cannot expect the government to aid or support their religion, however. Some parts of the line are simple.

Balancing the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause can be difficult. As can determining the degree to which some minor accomodations of community religious beliefs are de minimus and need not violate the First Amendment.

But you start at the wrong end of the scale, my friend. What you call an "extreme" is over 100 years of established Supreme Court caselaw. :rolleyes:

And I notice you are hiding behind the same deceptive "there is a line, but where is it" argument you use regarding free speech. This attempt to conceal (a) your lack of knowledge and (b) your agenda was feeble there, it makes even less sense here.

Yup, prove it doesn't.

Murder is frowned on by all cultures. And many of them don't have a formal established religion.

Shall we talk about hypocrisy of Christian morality? "You shall not murder." unless it was those godless turks(the crusades) or those godless Muslims(the Inquisition). those godless homosexuals, those godless abortion doctors, those godless family planning workers.

Get the idea why seperation of chruch and state is a good thing?

Yup, prove it doesn't.

ROTFLASTC

Will just any religion do?

'Cuz your religion has a rather short presence in the history of mankind.

Ah Cat-Tribe, nice to see you. Demolishing idiots again?

Ah Cat-Tribe, nice to see you. Demolishing idiots again?

Howdy. :)

You said it, I didn't. ;)

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

Aside from "majority rules," part of a democracy's job is to protect the minority. If there is a group of people that objects to references to a god on money or in the pledge of allegiance, they have a right to at least be heard. 86 percent of Americans believe in a god, but just because it's the majority doesn't mean it's right.

No, that's not the case. Europe was on the left for about 50 years. Only now, we're starting to adopt more liberal market policies. We're becoming less socialist.

Not really. Here in Italy, after this catastrophal government of Berlusconi, the left party will surely win the elections next year. This year at the last voting for regional governors the Left has collected the 52% of the votes, against the 45% of the right.
In Spain they have the most socially progressive government now with Zapatero, whose social reform program has already shown its value
In England the Labour won the elections for the third time in a row. Ok, it's leader Blair had a despicable foreign policy seen from a leftist point of view, but his inner politics were undoubtly left.
In France Chirac is losing popularity.
Only in Germany the tendency is oppisite, with a huge loss of consenses to the socialist government

No it doesn't. As long as you are not persecuted for your beliefs you have freedom of religion. Freedom from religion would mean taking any mention of religion out of public places, which is by no means what was meant.
I frankly believe it should.

No person should have the right to display religious icons on publically owned buildings. When only Christians (or whatever specific religion) pay the taxes, then you can put whatever funamentalist crap you want on your public buildings. Until then, the government should stay secular, 100%. No mention of "God" anywhere.

Ah Cat-Tribe, nice to see you. Demolishing idiots again?

Cat-Tribe likes to do a lot of mumbo jumbo but very little analytical position taking, he does it rather well too, seeing as he would rather say someone else is wrong and then proceed to talk about either an entirely different topic or else actually endorse the position.

Good for you though Bitchkitten, maybe the two of you can pat each other on the back long enough for the rest of society to actually take a position and explain why they think society should go one way or the other instead of screaming about how the other side (whatever side it might be) is ignorant in some such way (whether it's true or not seems to be irrelevant).



As to the moral code stuff ~ being religious or atheist etc., name one moral code that can be enforced that some religion somewhere didn't come up with first. How silly, to dismiss the entire history of mankind based on the fact you think you are individually so much more superior... It's sad really.

name one moral code that can be enforced that some religion somewhere didn't come up with first.

Aha! So it's okay for our laws to be based on someone else's religion? So, if tomorrow a law was made that said it would be illegal to eat pork or shellfish, and that meat and dairy should never be consumed together, that would be okay, right? It's all part of one of the world's oldest religions, one which has a history of being benevolent, kind and humanitarian. If the Jewish members of American society felt that the law should say noone can eat pork, that would be okay with you?

Examples like that above (which I've never heard purported as a potential law, which no Jewish person I know would want to be law, and was chosen because it was so ludicrous that I thought it might make my point) are the reason that we want the "church" (used to describe the establishment of any religion) to be protected from the government AND the government to be protected from the "church."

**********************
And before you decide to attack me, I'm a Christian, raised in a fundamentalist tradition. I now subscribe to the most liberal of the mainline denominations, but I know my Bible, I believe my Bible, I even try to use my Bible as my own law. I just don't want it to be the law of the USA. That would be a theocracy, and even a Christian theocracy isn't how I understand God wants us to arrange our society. If He did, He would never have given us free will, or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If He wanted everyone to be forced to obey His laws, He wouldn't have bothered to give us the capacity to disobey them.

Cat-Tribe likes to do a lot of mumbo jumbo but very little analytical position taking, he does it rather well too, seeing as he would rather say someone else is wrong and then proceed to talk about either an entirely different topic or else actually endorse the position.

Good for you though Bitchkitten, maybe the two of you can pat each other on the back long enough for the rest of society to actually take a position and explain why they think society should go one way or the other instead of screaming about how the other side (whatever side it might be) is ignorant in some such way (whether it's true or not seems to be irrelevant).



As to the moral code stuff ~ being religious or atheist etc., name one moral code that can be enforced that some religion somewhere didn't come up with first. How silly, to dismiss the entire history of mankind based on the fact you think you are individually so much more superior... It's sad really.

Very little 'mumbo-jumbo' in his statements, only reasoned responces based upon case law at the time. I've found that the judges own reasoning is often better then any paraphrase that you can come up with.

No it doesn't. As long as you are not persecuted for your beliefs you have freedom of religion. Freedom from religion would mean taking any mention of religion out of public places, which is by no means what was meant.

Being forced to live under a government with any ties whatsoever to religion is persecution if that religion does not match with what every individual believes. It's simply dormant theocracy.

Cat-Tribe likes to do a lot of mumbo jumbo but very little analytical position taking, he does it rather well too, seeing as he would rather say someone else is wrong and then proceed to talk about either an entirely different topic or else actually endorse the position.

Good for you though Bitchkitten, maybe the two of you can pat each other on the back long enough for the rest of society to actually take a position and explain why they think society should go one way or the other instead of screaming about how the other side (whatever side it might be) is ignorant in some such way (whether it's true or not seems to be irrelevant).

LOL.

I'm sorry, but defending the ACLU, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and separation of Church and State is taking positions.

Granted, educating you on these topics is tiresome, but disagreeing with your oversimplifications is taking an analytical position.

I find the charge that I am vague rather hilarious. You are the one that talks about "drawing a line" while being deliberately vague about where you would draw it. On the other hand, you wish to turn complex issues into black & white: "society should go one way or the other." "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Regardless, we should go in the direction of freedom, human rights & dignity, progress. I've explained my position on several specific aspects of this several times, such as on the topics of abortion, civil liberties, rape, racial equality, gender equality, etc. If it hasn't been clear enough for you.

As to the moral code stuff ~ being religious or atheist etc., name one moral code that can be enforced that some religion somewhere didn't come up with first. How silly, to dismiss the entire history of mankind based on the fact you think you are individually so much more superior... It's sad really

1. You are being deliberately disingenuous. You don't believe all religions are moral or equal. But, because it makes a convenient argument, suddenly the religions of ancient Egypt, Satanism, Buddhism, the beliefs of the Aztecs & Mayans are all religions upon which morals are based. :rolleyes:

2. I'm glad you are admitting that morals don't come from a belief in the Christian God.

3. You have anthropological evidence as to the first religion? The first moral code? Prove it.

4. Your "challenge" is a false one. There are many moral codes throughout history that have been developed without a basis in religion. Whether or not they may have shared aspects with some religious beliefs somewhere sometime is irrelevant. One can have a fully developed moral code without religion.

Very little 'mumbo-jumbo' in his statements, only reasoned responces based upon case law at the time. I've found that the judges own reasoning is often better then any paraphrase that you can come up with.

That's all very nice, and in some situations may be valid and reasonable. However, to suggest that repeating past and current case law during every social issue discussion in any way invalidates opposing point of view is IMO short-sighted. Over the history of America we can bring to our review a court decision for nearly every point of view in one court decision or another. One court over-rules another and the supreme court of one age over-rules the supreme court rulings of a previous age, unendingly ongoing.

But it’s not so clear cut even if you don't understand how what I said above is relevant. Here's a more immediate concern. If the opinion of the judges on the bench today are not themselves of concern, why then would the Left, AND the Right, spend so much time worrying about who gets to pick whom and which side is going to have the most judges on their side next year (never-ending battles of one-upmanship)?

I’ll tell you why, because even there for the vast majority of cases heard, EVEN there at the highest court in the land, opinion and viewpoint still matter, and the court is swayable and open to changing times. Just because the 9th circuit court might say one thing now, and then be over-ruled next month, or the supreme court goes one way this year and then ten years later changes it mind, or makes entirely undefendable decisions from time to time, the truth is… The end-all is not the courts, nor the legislature, nor the Presidency. It’s the people.

The people will decide which positions to support, the people will determine what is too far and what is not far enough.

I’ve been attacked in this thread for being a conservative and maybe I am, however, in this thread I’ve supported only the idea that both sides go too far, that there is a middle ground, that the entire history of social issues in American have done nothing if they have not shown that the concerns of this age may pass away with this age. That even the very Amendments themselves are changeable.

You can attack me for that all you want, but you know I tell the truth. And I suggest that if you really want to convince people that liberalism in such matters is the way they should go, I think perhaps you should grant them the freedom to express themselves as communities once in awhile and allow them the liberty of being wrong from time to time. Such as, sometimes allowing an Eagle to be placed next to a Cross which is placed next to a star of David that is next to a Crescent that is next to a yin-yang, and any number of other symbols, even on public property, is not harming the non-believer so much as it’s mixing the pot and letting it blend to perfection.

1. You are being deliberately disingenuous. You don't believe all religions are moral or equal. But, because it makes a convenient argument, suddenly the religions of ancient Egypt, Satanism, Buddhism, the beliefs of the Aztecs & Mayans are all religions upon which morals are based. :rolleyes:

2. I'm glad you are admitting that morals don't come from a belief in the Christian God.

3. You have anthropological evidence as to the first religion? The first moral code? Prove it.

4. Your "challenge" is a false one. There are many moral codes throughout history that have been developed without a basis in religion. Whether or not they may have shared aspects with some religious beliefs somewhere sometime is irrelevant. One can have a fully developed moral code without religion.

A lot of words that didn't show any atheistic moral code that wasn't merely adapted by the atheist from the religion of the society the atheist was raised in...

That's all very nice, and in some situations may be valid and reasonable. However, to suggest that repeating past and current case law during every social issue discussion in any way invalidates opposing point of view is IMO short-sighted. Over the history of America we can bring to our review a court decision for nearly every point of view in one court decision or another. One court over-rules another and the supreme court of one age over-rules the supreme court rulings of a previous age, unendingly ongoing.

But it’s not so clear cut even if you don't understand how what I said above is relevant. Here's a more immediate concern. If the opinion of the judges on the bench today are not themselves of concern, why then would the Left, AND the Right, spend so much time worrying about who gets to pick whom and which side is going to have the most judges on their side next year (never-ending battles of one-upmanship)?

1. On a legal issue, like the meaning of the First Amendment, caselaw is relevant -- both as to the seperation of Church and State and freedom of speech. Particularly when the argument is about what the law is and/or why. I cite caselaw on legal arguments. I cite other sources on other arguments.

2. Yes, caselaw changes. Duh. But some here tend to take positions that have been consistently rejected for decades upon decades upon decades. Some principles have been consistently held by every Supreme Court that has approached an issue. You and others have taken positions not supported by any decisions ever and rejected by scores of cases going back over 100 years.

3. As I explained before there is a difference between debate the edges of an issue -- the frontlines where reasonable jurists disagree -- and trying to go back and act like certain parts of the Constitution don't exist or that the Supreme Court has been consistently wrong an issue in every case decided on that issue. I would gladly engage in an intelligent discussion of where the line of separation between Church and State should be drawn in a specific case. You have yet to state a position with any clarity. Others tried to deny there such a line -- they are simply wrong.

I’ll tell you why, because even there for the vast majority of cases heard, EVEN there at the highest court in the land, opinion and viewpoint still matter, and the court is swayable and open to changing times. Just because the 9th circuit court might say one thing now, and then be over-ruled next month, or the supreme court goes one way this year and then ten years later changes it mind, or makes entirely undefendable decisions from time to time, the truth is… The end-all is not the courts, nor the legislature, nor the Presidency. It’s the people.

The people will decide which positions to support, the people will determine what is too far and what is not far enough.

We are not a democracy. We are constitutional Republic. There are some things that are meant to be above public opinion.

The principles behind most of the Bill of Rights are inalienable rights protected by natural law.

They are not and should not be subject to the whims of the people.

I’ve been attacked in this thread for being a conservative and maybe I am, however, in this thread I’ve supported only the idea that both sides go too far, that there is a middle ground, that the entire history of social issues in American have done nothing if they have not shown that the concerns of this age may pass away with this age. That even the very Amendments themselves are changeable.

You've been terminally vague about this "middle ground" or who the two "sides" are.

What you appear to be saying is that the "side" of separation of Church and State is an "extreme." You are wrong.

It appears that you believe that government can favor a religion. You expressly said that you think the First Amendment can pass laws expressly favoring religion. That is not "middle ground." That is simply erasing the Establishment Clause.

You can attack me for that all you want, but you know I tell the truth.

Bullshit. And you accuse me of arrogance?

And I suggest that if you really want to convince people that liberalism in such matters is the way they should go, I think perhaps you should grant them the freedom to express themselves as communities once in awhile and allow them the liberty of being wrong from time to time.

Meh.

Again, with the vague meaningless phrases that attempt to disguise what you are actually saying.

We all have freedom of expression. That is what the First Amendment is about. (Remember, you were against it yesterday.)

But if by "expressing themselves as communities" you mean violating the rights of others, suppressing free speech, establishing religion, resticting the free exercise of religion, etc., no. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is that their are limits. There are things the majority cannot do. There are liberties that are sacred.

Such as, sometimes allowing an Eagle to be placed next to a Cross which is placed next to a star of David that is next to a Crescent that is next to a yin-yang, and any number of other symbols, even on public property, is not harming the non-believer so much as it’s mixing the pot and letting it blend to perfection.

Again, you are being rather vague.

Depending on specifics, such things already exist and are allowed on public property.

But I am fairly certain what you are thinking of is an endorsement of religion and/or some religions. Sorry, that issue was decided by the people in 1791 when the First Amendment was ratified.

A lot of words that didn't show any atheistic moral code that wasn't merely adapted by the atheist from the religion of the society the atheist was raised in...

Cute. Nice job of not responding to my points. :rolleyes:

You might want to look up the phrase "argumentum ad ignorantiam." (And "post hoc ergo propter hoc.")

Regardless, are you contending Plato's Republic is a theistic religious moral code?

As is Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics?

As is utilitarianism?

As is existentialism?

As is Buddhism?

As is objectivism?

As is Kant's categorical imperatives?

BTW, don't think we haven't noticed you have no proof of your assertion that all morality derives from religion. Instead, you've tried to press a burden of proof on a separate question.

But I am fairly certain what you are thinking of is an endorsement of religion and/or some religions. Sorry, that issue was decided by the people in 1791 when the First Amendment was ratified.

I thought that in 1791 the understanding was that the federal government couldn't establish religions, but the states could.

1. On a legal issue, like the meaning of the First Amendment, caselaw is relevant -- both as to the seperation of Church and State and freedom of speech. Particularly when the argument is about what the law is and/or why. I cite caselaw on legal arguments. I cite other sources on other arguments.

2. Yes, caselaw changes. Duh. But some here tend to take positions that have been consistently rejected for decades upon decades upon decades. Some principles have been consistently held by every Supreme Court that has approached an issue. You and others have taken positions not supported by any decisions ever and rejected by scores of cases going back over 100 years.
100 years? Hmmm, that sounds about right. The law of the land defended the right to keep and retain and reclaim slaves for about a hundred years, time for a change.


3. As I explained before there is a difference between debate the edges of an issue -- the frontlines where reasonable jurists disagree -- and trying to go back and act like certain parts of the Constitution don't exist or that the Supreme Court has been consistently wrong an issue in every case decided on that issue. I would gladly engage in an intelligent discussion of where the line of separation between Church and State should be drawn in a specific case. You have yet to state a position with any clarity. Others tried to deny there such a line -- they are simply wrong.
Hmm*wakes from slight slumber* What? What was that? You’ve nailed something on the head there. I’m not always talking to you now am I? Sometime I have to lead them to the water before I can make them drink.

Sometimes I have to confirm with all parties involved what the parameters are (in this case, that the line exists at all) before I can reasonably say what my position is.

Remember that for a couple of quotes here…


We are not a democracy. We are constitutional Republic. There are some things that are meant to be above public opinion.

The principles behind most of the Bill of Rights are inalienable rights protected by natural law.

They are not and should not be subject to the whims of the people. and I qualified my comment wit, “ because even there for the vast majority of cases heard” I said that because I agree, not all things are up for discussion.


because even there for the vast majority of cases heard
You've been terminally vague about this "middle ground" or who the two "sides" are.

What you appear to be saying is that the "side" of separation of Church and State is an "extreme." You are wrong. No, I had to remind people that a line IS drawn, and most of them know it but they aren’t thinking of it as a line. Once we get the line’s existence agreed to, we can discuss where to put it. I didn’t say anything outside of saying I think it’s okay to have a line and that having no line was a bad thing.

It appears that you believe that government can favor a religion. You expressly said that you think the First Amendment can pass laws expressly favoring religion. That is not "middle ground." That is simply erasing the Establishment Clause. I argued that allowing tax-exempt was in itself a form of ‘favor’ recognition, and thus, not against the law to give them some recognition, and that it is not an endorsement by the government of any religion in particular and the anti-all-religion atheists should just go sod off.


Bullshit. And you accuse me of arrogance? World History has shown how many countries have survived without being overthrown? Hmmm? None. Where was my comment wrong? There is nothing inherent in the American system that makes it incapable of being overthrown by it’s own people.

We all have freedom of expression. That is what the First Amendment is about. (Remember, you were against it yesterday.) Not true, I drew a line for “freedom of Speech. I said that the NAMBLA group did not have have the protection of freedom of speech to go around advocating child molestation. That IMO, that was a line that we could draw without it being unconstitutional, in the name off immediately protecting minors and advocacy of child ‘pornography’ talking about sex with children for the sake of arousal instead of education. I was against that, not freedom of speech.


But if by "expressing themselves as communities" you mean violating the rights of others, suppressing free speech, establishing religion, restricting the free exercise of religion, etc., no. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is that their are limits. There are things the majority cannot do. There are liberties that are sacred. yes there are. However, If I move into a Jewish neighborhood of my own free will, I can’t really complain that it’s hard to buy a ham and cheese sandwich at the local deli now can I? And if I do complain anyway, I say the community has the right to ignore me and continue as usual.

At some point we can not expect all of America to be one big blank grey society, with no character differences from one region to the next, without character and identity from area to area.

If there is an Irish identity to uptown Boston, a Jewish and African region to Harlem, a southern French region to New Orleans, a Swedish Scandinavian aspect to Minneapolis, a German region in Wisconsin, a Hmong region Rochester, a Chinese aspect to parts of various cities, a Native society wherever they may be found…. You know what, I don’t have a problem with that. Why do you? Who are you to go there and say, hey, you have some religious looking symbols on the courthouse here, and those city parks over there have some statues that might look a little religious inspired to me too… Feds say they have to go.

I thought that in 1791 the understanding was that the federal government couldn't establish religions, but the states could.

Good point (except for where state constitutions forbade establishments ;) ). The same is true of freedom of speech, warrantless searches, double jeopardy, and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

That changed in 1868.

Of course, smart aleck, now you can try to explain incorporation. :p

I've been called an idiot enough times for saying the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states for about a third of our history. Your turn. :D

Good point (except for where state constitutions forbade establishments ;) ). The same is true of freedom of speech, warrantless searches, double jeopardy, and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

That changed in 1868.

Of course, smart aleck, now you can try to explain incorporation. :p

I've been called an idiot enough times for saying the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states for about a third of our history. Your turn. :D

Well, no, I am aware of incorporation. I was just being a pedant. (Saying that, incorporation has been greatly expanded from the original Palko (IIRC) case, which applied to criminal due process - I can't be bothered to look it up). But as far as everyone who counts these days is concerned, yes the first ammendment applies to state government.

Saying that, I have heard it bandied about that the first amendment cannot legitimately be incorporated through the fourteenth amendment. As I recall the arguement ran something along the lines that:

1. The bill of rights not only protects the right of individuals, but also the rights of the states.

2. The first ammendment not only protects the individual from interference from interference of these rights by the federal government, but also protects the rights of the individual to states to regulate them. This is supported by the wording of the amendment which states "Congress shall make no law...". Insofar as nothing in the Constitution is superfluous, and words should be taken at their plain meaning, it is therefore clear from the text that this is solely a prohibition of federal power, and simultaneously the creation of a states right.

3. Thus, the first amendment is not incorporated by the fourteenth, as it an abrogation of a specific grant of power to the states not explicity amended elsewhere.

I don't agree with this, and I am sure there was more to it because I can't say I was paying much attention not being religious. (Quite the opposite in fact, I wish that we could regulate them more, or at least get them to fork over some taxes.) I just thought it was interesting. I am sure there are tons of holes you can shoot into it - frankly its a bit of a meh to me. I am also aware it runs completely contrary to just about everyone's thoughts on the matter. Including every court, ever, in recent history.

Some religious dude is bound to seize on it sooner or later though. (Joy :rolleyes: ).

100 years? Hmmm, that sounds about right. The law of the land defended the right to keep and retain and reclaim slaves for about a hundred years, time for a change.

Cute. Inaccurate, but cute.

But don't you claim in a few paragraphs that your only point is that there is and should be a wall of separation of Church and State?

Then what law would you change? Or are you being disingenuous somewhere here.

Hmm*wakes from slight slumber* What? What was that? You’ve nailed something on the head there. I’m not always talking to you now am I? Sometime I have to lead them to the water before I can make them drink.

Sometimes I have to confirm with all parties involved what the parameters are (in this case, that the line exists at all) before I can reasonably say what my position is.

Remember that for a couple of quotes here…

No, I had to remind people that a line IS drawn, and most of them know it but they aren’t thinking of it as a line. Once we get the line’s existence agreed to, we can discuss where to put it. I didn’t say anything outside of saying I think it’s okay to have a line and that having no line was a bad thing.

Then, if that is all you have said, we are in complete agreement. There is a wall of separation between Church and State. And there should be.


I argued that allowing tax-exempt was in itself a form of ‘favor’ recognition, and thus, not against the law to give them some recognition, and that it is not an endorsement by the government of any religion in particular and the anti-all-religion atheists should just go sod off.

And I explained in detail why your premise was false.

You misunderstand entirely the basis of tax-exemptions for religion and why they are allowed and sometimes disallowed under the First Amendment.

As your premise was false, so was your conclusion.

Moreoever, the government may not endorse religion or any religion in particular. That is the whole point of the Establishment Clause.

So, all anti-freedom-of-religion or the-government-should-support-my-religion types should just go sod off.

World History has shown how many countries have survived without being overthrown? Hmmm? None. Where was my comment wrong? There is nothing inherent in the American system that makes it incapable of being overthrown by it’s own people.

1. So the only thing you were claiming was "the truth" is that it is possible our system of government could be overthrown? :rolleyes: (I thought the only thing you were saying was there was a line. You seem to "only say" a lot of different things.)

2. Are you admitting your view requires throwing out the Constitution? You are right. It does.

Not true, I drew a line for “freedom of Speech. I said that the NAMBLA group did not have have the protection of freedom of speech to go around advocating child molestation. That IMO, that was a line that we could draw without it being unconstitutional, in the name off immediately protecting minors and advocacy of child ‘pornography’ talking about sex with children for the sake of arousal instead of education. I was against that, not freedom of speech.

Notice that you are against freedom of speech as it now stands. You tried to argue that your view was consistent with existing First Amendment jurisprudence, not a change.

And your view is an abridgement of the freedom of speech. But that was explained at length in another thread.

At least there you actually finally took a position instead of vague talk about "the middle ground" of where the "line" could be drawn.

yes there are. However, If I move into a Jewish neighborhood of my own free will, I can’t really complain that it’s hard to buy a ham and cheese sandwich at the local deli now can I? And if I do complain anyway, I say the community has the right to ignore me and continue as usual.

At some point we can not expect all of America to be one big blank grey society, with no character differences from one region to the next, without character and identity from area to area.

If there is an Irish identity to uptown Boston, a Jewish and African region to Harlem, a southern French region to New Orleans, a Swedish Scandinavian aspect to Minneapolis, a German region in Wisconsin, a Hmong region Rochester, a Chinese aspect to parts of various cities, a Native society wherever they may be found…. You know what, I don’t have a problem with that. Why do you?

I don't have a problem with that (although your descriptions are humorous).

I have a problem with violations of the First Amendment.

Who are you to go there and say, hey, you have some religious looking symbols on the courthouse here, and those city parks over there have some statues that might look a little religious inspired to me too… Feds say they have to go.

See ... I knew you really had a position. And it is counter to the First Amendment.

I am a citizen of the United States. I am a taxpayer.

I have a right -- nay, a duty -- to see that the Constitution is obeyed.

Again, read this (and either explain why it is wrong or accept it):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ), 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

This is not an extreme. It is simply what the law is and should be.

Cat-Tribe likes to do a lot of mumbo jumbo but very little analytical position taking, he does it rather well too, seeing as he would rather say someone else is wrong and then proceed to talk about either an entirely different topic or else actually endorse the position.


Actually, I find he puts a lot of thought into his stuff, and he always has sources, not that I usually agree with him - or his sources*. The thing of it is he is a zealous advocate, and it can be a bit exhausting, if you are not used to that type of debate. (No offence C-T).

*I exagerate of course.

Actually, I find he puts a lot of thought into his stuff, and he always has sources, not that I usually agree with him - or his sources. The thing of it is he is a zealous advocate, and it can be a bit exhausting. (No offence C-T).

Thank you. And thank you. (None taken. I think it is something of a compliment. ;) )

Psst -- the fact that the Founding Fathers started your country doesn't mean they were perfect. Seriously, you guys have way too much of a hero complex built up around them. They were only human. They could be wrong. Accept it.

1. They were FAR better than you, thus making their opinions more valid and hold more weight ESPECIALLY in government affairs, our political orientation, and anything regarding HOW we should proceed to rule this government and country that was paid in their blood, sweat, and sacrifices. Some were geniuses that no longer walk the earth, while others were people of the GREATEST noble character. They not only had MORE experience and wisdom than you and your pathetic close minded opinion of them, but their opinions were FAR more impressive than the politicians we have now. Probably due to poorer education or due to the types of people that get in high political jobs now. We honor them because they weren't just heroes, they WERE legendary figures, and we have evidence of their existance through their words, actions, and other historical reference to them.

Frankly, who are YOU to criticize our love and honor for them? You are not Martin Luther King. Your just a gimp on the internet. Whoopty friggin do.

2. A lot of crap stated in that email is incorrect. For instance MANY of them were deists and didn't exactly worship Jesus. James Madison likely didn't say that about Christianity. He was a bookworm and HIGHLY influenced by his mentor Jefferson who many religious extremists call an atheist. The founders KNEW how bad religion can effect affairs of states. The most intelligent ones prefered NOT to enforce religion on people. Most of the southern colonies were rather indifferent towards religion, while the makeup of the northern colonies such as Massachusettes were more puritanical and religious. While John Adams was weary of the role of religion in history, his cousin, Samuel was more of the type to make America into a christian Sparta. Keep in mind of the source who wrote this is using PROPAGANDA and false information to do two purposes.

1. Distort the truth and history to gain voters specifically religious voters by waving the god flag trying to signal as if this corrupt party (just like the dems) is somehow the "party of god" when they are just crooked politicians out for power.

2. Consolidate the voters they have now around a theme. Kind of piss them off at other voters. These guys use propaganda and lies to continue to keep their base due to elections coming up soon.

One of the BEST ways of finding out if someone is lying is if they provide sources for their quotes that can be verified through either documentation, or through the founders' own words. For instance the lack of information on John Jay's "quote".

I do know that Patrick Henry MIGHT have proposed christianity.. but he tapered off after the cause got bigger idealisms into it.

What pisses me off is not that people want to keep prayers in school or anything like that. Its distorting our national history and America's reasons for creation which dealt with greater stuff such as independence, the enlightenment (classical liberalism), pragmatic behavior in individials, and the experiences of absolute freedom, tyranny, and chaos that taught them how to found a government.

I thought that in 1791 the understanding was that the federal government couldn't establish religions, but the states could.

Lac, I'm sorry, no cookie for you.

The 1st amendment, specifically applies to "The Federal Government"; in that you are right.


That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.


That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion.


All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.


All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.


Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted; yet no man shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his own free will and consent; and no power shall or ought to be vested in or assumed by any magistrate that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship, nor a preference given by law to any religious societies, denominations, or modes of worship.


Freedom of religion. -- Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness; and whereas a principal object of our venerable ancestors, in their migration to this country and their settlement of this state, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing civil state may stand and be best maintained with full liberty in religious concernments; we, therefore, declare that no person shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of such person's voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of such person's religious belief; and that every person shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of such person's conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain such person's opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect the civil capacity of any person.


The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed
in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered
incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters
of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall
not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify
practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.

I can keep going if you like...

A lot of words that didn't show any atheistic moral code that wasn't merely adapted by the atheist from the religion of the society the atheist was raised in...

You made the claim it is your task to support it. Not the other way around.

Certainly there are isolated societies that have been discovered. that have moral codes that amazingly resemble Christian moral codes, no murder, no theft. Why do you think that is? Christianity? Or maybe "some truths we hold to be self-evident"?

Actually, I find he puts a lot of thought into his stuff, and he always has sources, not that I usually agree with him - or his sources*. The thing of it is he is a zealous advocate, and it can be a bit exhausting, if you are not used to that type of debate. (No offence C-T).

*I exagerate of course.

I actually fully agree with this about him and you. I often disagree with one or both of you, but I find that your arguments are thoughtful and well-supported. I find it amusing when people call mountains of evidence mumbo-jumbo just because they disagree.

THere ARE actually atheistic values, like the human rights and freedoms for example. These are not linked to any religion, and are called "self-evident" rights exactly because you have no need to explain them (well, some has tried to give some rules, like the principle for whom a person's freedom ends where the other's freedoms begin)
the reason why in history you find that assimilable values were first "invented" by religious leaders/books, is that in the good old days the people hadn't a civil conscience like we have, but a much greater fear of the deities. To have the people follow the laws the best thing was to say that they were divine, so that community living could be acceptable.

You made the claim it is your task to support it. Not the other way around.

Certainly there are isolated societies that have been discovered. that have moral codes that amazingly resemble Christian moral codes, no murder, no theft. Why do you think that is? Christianity? Or maybe "some truths we hold to be self-evident"?

And if there really is a God that forms us with an inner knowledge of right and wrong, of justice and injustice, why would I be surprised? I think rather, I would be surprised if you can find some human beings that 'don't' have an inner guide of an intrinsic 'right and wrong.'

I suggest that there are none. That there is no society that has ever existed that was void of the concept of right and wrong, and they all had religions (good or bad)...

Cute.
Then, if that is all you have said, we are in complete agreement. There is a wall of separation between Church and State. And there should be. Yes, we agree. But we don’t agree on what that means. I suggest that the community is free to worship as they like, public or otherwise, more so than not. You propose that the community never get to suggest any kind of worship in the public realm, thus, we disagree.


Moreoever, the government may not endorse religion or any religion in particular. That is the whole point of the Establishment Clause.

So, all anti-freedom-of-religion or the-government-should-support-my-religion types should just go sod off. Agreed again, but I think that this gives me the freedom to say (for example) the deities name (Jesus, God, Allah etc.,) at the end of a public speech in say, the opening of the legislature’s business day.



1. So the only thing you were claiming was "the truth" is that it is possible our system of government could be overthrown? :rolleyes: (I thought the only thing you were saying was there was a line. You seem to "only say" a lot of different things.)
2. Are you admitting your view requires throwing out the Constitution? You are right. It does.

Now who’s being cute? No, I had already mentioned that even Amendments themselves can be changed when the will of the people gets strong enough for change. And that if the government resisted by force, human nature is to demand by force.




I don't have a problem with that (although your descriptions are humorous).
they were meant to be simpleton examples and humorous, not meant as accurate descriptions.


See ... I knew you really had a position. And it is counter to the First Amendment.

I am a citizen of the United States. I am a taxpayer.

I have a right -- nay, a duty -- to see that the Constitution is obeyed.

Again, read this (and either explain why it is wrong or accept it):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' I entirely accept it. And I say ‘allowing’ the individual communities to worship, in public and as a community, do not in any way break or change the above decision/ruling. You think allowing it breaks the rule, even though taxpayer money or taxes is not involved. I disagree, I think that above ruling is entirely about money and taxes and how it’s spent, not what face a community might display (religiously).

Yes, we agree. But we don’t agree on what that means. I suggest that the community is free to worship as they like, public or otherwise, more so than not. You propose that the community never get to suggest any kind of worship in the public realm, thus, we disagree.

No, you have my view wrong. Anyone and any group is free to worship as they like -- and subject to neutral laws re place, time, etc., that includes in public.

If all you meant were community groupes being able to worship in public, we would have no dispute. That clearly is and should be allowed. In fact, it is protected by the First Amendment.

But you are using "community" as a screen for government. The government may not suggest any kind of worship. That clearly is not and should not be allowed.

That is where we differ.

Why are you trying so hard to disguise your view?


Agreed again, but I think that this gives me the freedom to say (for example) the deities name (Jesus, God, Allah etc.,) at the end of a public speech in say, the opening of the legislature’s business day.

Yep. It sure does. Who said it did? Those darn strawmen!


Now who’s being cute? No, I had already mentioned that even Amendments themselves can be changed when the will of the people gets strong enough for change. And that if the government resisted by force, human nature is to demand by force.

Again, this is relevant because ..... your view requires the Constitution be changed -- perhaps by force?

I entirely accept it. And I say ‘allowing’ the individual communities to worship, in public and as a community, do not in any way break or change the above decision/ruling. You think allowing it breaks the rule, even though taxpayer money or taxes is not involved. I disagree, I think that above ruling is entirely about money and taxes and how it’s spent, not what face a community might display (religiously).

Goody. But you seem to not understand it.

If you think the quote was entirely about public money and taxes, you should read it again. I'll break it out for you:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. (not just about money and taxes)

Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. (not just about money and taxes)

Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. (not just about money and taxes)

No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. (not just about money and taxes)

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. (there is one primarily about money and taxes!)

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. (not just about money and taxes)

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Note, the Court said the Establishment Clause meant at least the above.

Again, you are being deliberately vague. If your community worship or religious displays do not involve the government, hooray for them!

But if they involve (a) passing a law, ordinace, resolution, etc. that favors a religion, (b) forcing anyone to profess a religious belief, (c) disadvantaging someone for professing or not professing a religious belief, (d) using public funds or resource to support a religion or teach a religious belief, or (e) involving the government in religious affairs, etc., then they clearly violate the Constitution. And should not be allowed.

...
But if they involve (a) passing a law, ordinace, resolution, etc. that favors a religion, (b) forcing anyone to profess a religious belief, (c) disadvantaging someone for professing or not professing a religious belief, (d) using public funds or resource to support a religion or teach a religious belief, or (e) involving the government in religious affairs, etc., then they clearly violate the Constitution. And should not be allowed.

Ah, so it IS okay if donors put a monument of the ten commandments on the grounds of public courthouse, and maybe an alter or cross on state owned public access property to be viewed by passing traffic, and maybe a statue of Jesus talking to children in a public park?

Which one of the rules above was broken by any of that?

Ah, so it IS okay if donors put a monument of the ten commandments on the grounds of public courthouse, and maybe an alter or cross on state owned public access property to be viewed by passing traffic, and maybe a statue of Jesus talking to children in a public park?

Which one of the rules above was broken by any of that?

Using public resources -- i.e., the courthouse and the land -- to support a religion.

Passing a law, resolution, etc., favoring a religion. Are you trying to claim these religious monuments are erected on the grounds of a public courthouse or public park without government action? Without a law, ordinance, resolution, etc., supporting it. Anyone can just erect any structure on public property? You know better.

You involve government in endorsing specific religions and not others. You would use the public lands and buildings paid for by all the taxpayers to support the religious beliefs of just some of the taxpayers.

Those are just the most obvious objections. There are many more.

But at least you are finally showing your colors. :eek:

Lac, I'm sorry, no cookie for you.


I like this one.



Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.

And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.

Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

Can I have my cookie now?

Using public resources -- i.e., the courthouse and the land -- to support a religion.

Passing a law, resolution, etc., favoring a religion. Are you trying to claim these religious monuments are erected on the grounds of a public courthouse or public park without government action? Without a law, ordinance, resolution, etc., supporting it. Anyone can just erect any structure on public property? You know better.

You involve government in endorsing specific religions and not others. You would use the public lands and buildings paid for by all the taxpayers to support the religious beliefs of just some of the taxpayers.

Those are just the most obvious objections. There are many more.

But at least you are finally showing your colors. :eek:

I take it you already know the supreme courts ruling then? Why wait for July huh? Heck, why did they even hear the cases at all, when all they had to do was ask you what they were supposed to decide?

Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500, and McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.

As per the Prayer in class thing - we don't have enough time in class to pray. Sorry, but we have something called learning to do. *Voluntarily sensors sentence regarding religion, knowledge, oil, water to avoid being given a two week vacation*

Secularism =/= persecution of xtians
secularism =/= atheism

Christianity:
One nation, under god
Secular:
One nation,
Atheism:
One nation, under humanity,

America has a mini-cult of personality regarding the founding fathers.

Did you know that the separation of church and state is a highly propagated myth. There is no such law found in the constitution.

ANd if you think that the Constitution needs to specifically state anything for something to be unconstitutional, you need to study the constitution more. The Supreme Court was put into place for the very important reason of interpretting laws, and the Constitution. The Founding Fathers new that times would change, and that interpretation would be needed.

The law which is interpretted is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

Remember, it doesn't have to specifically mention "Seperation of Church and State". It has been interpretted from this law. Just like your right to privacy. There is no Constitutional law which specifically says that police can't go into your medical records and find out that you had penal cancer last year, but it is still an invasion of privacy, and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court interprets these laws, and they are interpretted so for good reason.

Also, believe it or not, but Seperation of Church and State protects religion, it doesn't hurt it. Of course your fundementalist mind doesn't see this, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Meh, religion gave us the first laws and gave the young US government more power early on. Why do you think robbery and murder is illegal? Why do you think purposely lying to the government and to the law enforcement is illegal? Because of those first little laws that were passed on from nation to nation.

I take it you already know the supreme courts ruling then? Why wait for July huh? Heck, why did they even hear the cases at all, when all they had to do was ask you what they were supposed to decide?

Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500, and McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.

LOL.

Did you think I was unaware of those cases?

I've debated those specific facts in these forums. :rolleyes:

Of course, those cases don't necessarily match the facts that you set forth either. You clearly don't know the facts of either case very well.

My every word is not controlled by the Supreme Court. (It is odd that you would reject caselaw decided repeatedly over decades, but think the fact that an issue is pending but undecided should control that issue.) I have an opinion.

The facts and issues of those cases make them debatable. They are exactly what I was talking about when I challenged you for specifics rather than this vague "middle ground" crap.

Religious displays on public property have been both allowed and disallowed by the Supreme Court, depending on the specific facts and context. See Lynch v. Donnelly (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=465&invol=668), 465 U.S. 668 (1984); Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=492&invol=573), 492 U.S. 573 (1989).

The "facts" that you presented I took at face value. They were naked religious displays erected on public property for religious purposes. As such, I think they clearly violate the First Amendment. I explained some reasons why.

Did you wish to argue the point? Or are you have no opinion until the pending Supreme Court cases are decided?

Meh, religion gave us the first laws and gave the young US government more power early on. Why do you think robbery and murder is illegal? Why do you think purposely lying to the government and to the law enforcement is illegal? Because of those first little laws that were passed on from nation to nation.

Oddly enough, Hammurabi came up with those laws long before the Bible did.

Of course, those cases don't necessarily match the facts that you set forth either. You clearly don't know the facts of either case very well. Oh fine, AS IF the two cases mentioned might not have an effect on this entire issue, and having an immediate impact on at least forty different state capitals etc., etc., etc., and so on and so forth.

Unless the court decided to duck the issue again and make limited decisions, such as something like; “Van Orden doesn’t have an issue to address and is dismissed without further comment, you know, not taking the opportunity to address the Lemon clause at all, and if they decide to agree with the ACLU on the McCreary case, then nothing new will occur because it will continue to be a mixed message (see below for more),


My every word is not controlled by the Supreme Court. (It is odd that you would reject caselaw decided repeatedly over decades, but think the fact that an issue is pending but undecided should control that issue.) I have an opinion.

I, for one, am not sure which way the court is going to go on the issue. It may re-address the lemon clause and go in either direction. Perhaps making it impossible to have any reference to any religion across the country and every state has to throw up a plain brick façade on all of their government buildings just to be sure no artwork of any kind is displayed. OR, they may go the other way, and decide the Lemon test is too much restriction on the freedom to worship and they re-write it to allow all religious displays not paid for by the tax payers AND provided no religious donation of any kind are excluded from being diplayed after they are donated... The next thing you know every community government building HAS to find a spot to display every donated religious piece of artwork they get whether they want to or not, going from one end of the spectrum to the other. Causing the ACLU fans to have public shitfits of the like not seen since the anti-abortionists freaked out after Row v. Wade.


The facts and issues of those cases make them debatable. They are exactly what I was talking about when I challenged you for specifics rather than this vague "middle ground" crap. Court cases are sometimes simple, but issues address law across the board. You know that, and you know that the two case in court now CAN have a issue addressing decision effecting years of public practice, OR they might cop out and stick only single case restrictive decisions. My main point was to get you to admit that the issue of separation of Church and State is not such a simple “my view is right and yours is ignorance” propaganda nonsense to stop and admit that there are different interpretations. And you did, so I’m happy.

AS for my opinion, I think this section of a ruling was on the right track…
(a) The concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the "callous indifference," Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 , that was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Pp. 672-673.
I’m would like to see the lemon test entirely replaced with something along those lines, allowing more rather than restricting more..



The "facts" that you presented I took at face value. They were naked religious displays erected on public property for religious purposes. As such, I think they clearly violate the First Amendment. I explained some reasons why. And I explained why I think they might be alright.

I like this one.




Can I have my cookie now?

No, you cannot have your cookie. One state, does not the United States make.

Your claim was "I thought that in 1791 the understanding was that the federal government couldn't establish religions, but the states could."

the States of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and New York disagree with you.... In addition, I did not list South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut (which also bar state religious institutionalization).

12 of the 13 say that State institution of churches is unconstitutional (in their own constitutions); 1 does not... Also, once seperated from Massachusetts, Maine drafted its bill of rights in line with the United States Constitution, and the other original 12 colonies (besides Massachussets).So no, besides Massachusetts, no state thought they could establish religion in their borders (by state authority).

Enactment of the Constitution in ratification in 1791, saw the federal government as being barred from the creation of a state church. At that time, 12 colonies also said (in their own bill of rights) that they also could not set up state churches (predating the US Constitution and subsequent bill of rights [Virginia, Connecticut and Rhode Island being the earliest, all in 1776, beginning with Virginia (which even predates the Declaration of Independence)]).

Oh fine, AS IF the two cases mentioned might not have an effect on this entire issue, and having an immediate impact on at least forty different state capitals etc., etc., etc., and so on and so forth.

Unless the court decided to duck the issue again and make limited decisions, such as something like; “Van Orden doesn’t have an issue to address and is dismissed without further comment, you know, not taking the opportunity to address the Lemon clause at all, and if they decide to agree with the ACLU on the McCreary case, then nothing new will occur because it will continue to be a mixed message (see below for more),

Sorry, but facts are important in Supreme Court cases -- particularly in deciding whether a particular religious display violates the Establishment Clause.

It is not a matter of "ducking the issue." It is funny that you allegedly argue for a "middle ground" and then criticize the fact that a Conservative-dominated Supreme Court has sought a middle-ground in cases like Lynch and Allegheny. You call the middle-ground a "mixed message."

Obviously there is no way to know for certain what the Court might say regarding those cases. It is always possible they will make a major shift in the law.

But the fact of the matter is that the hypotheticals you posed did not match the facts of the Van Orden or McCreary. Moreoever, the arguments to the Court as to why those displays of the Ten Commandments are permissible focus on arguments that they are not primarily religious symbols and were not displayed for primarily religious purposes.

I, for one, am not sure which way the court is going to go on the issue. It may re-address the lemon clause and go in either direction. Perhaps making it impossible to have any reference to any religion across the country and every state has to throw up a plain brick façade on all of their government buildings just to be sure no artwork of any kind is displayed. OR, they may go the other way, and decide the Lemon test is too much restriction on the freedom to worship and they re-write it to allow all religious displays not paid for by the tax payers AND provided no religious donation of any kind are excluded from being diplayed after they are donated... The next thing you know every community government building HAS to find a spot to display every donated religious piece of artwork they get whether they want to or not, going from one end of the spectrum to the other. Causing the ACLU fans to have public shitfits of the like not seen since the anti-abortionists freaked out after Ro[e] v. Wade.

Neither extreme is particularly likely.

Stare decisis is intended to create stability in the law. The Court does overturn past precedent on occasion, but it does not do so on mere whims. Nor does it often make such sharp departures that you suggest.

The Court is not presented with either stark choice you suggest. It is theoretcially possible that the Court could say either extreme you suggest. It is also theoretically possible they could write an opinion that mere says "MOO" or "2+2=5." None of these are likely.

The Court may or may not rule the displays in Van Order or McCreary are constitutional. They may or may not make new law in doing so. But they are not writing on a blank slate -- and I highly doubt they will erase it.

Court cases are sometimes simple, but issues address law across the board. You know that, and you know that the two case in court now CAN have a issue addressing decision effecting years of public practice, OR they might cop out and stick only single case restrictive decisions. My main point was to get you to admit that the issue of separation of Church and State is not such a simple “my view is right and yours is ignorance” propaganda nonsense to stop and admit that there are different interpretations. And you did, so I’m happy.

<sigh>

Sorry, you didn't force me to admit anything. I have recognized all along here the wall of separation of Church and State should lie is a tricky and debatable question.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9038012&postcount=92 (emphasis added)

I wish. This one of those issues that people just don't get.

Where the wall of separation should be is sometimes damn tricky and a very legitimate point of debate.

Theoretically, one could debate whether there should be a wall, but most reasonable minds agree with Madison that both religion and government are better off by the separation.

That our Constitution establishes a wall of separation is not really debatable.

Nonetheless, I still think my view is right and yours is ignorance. :p

AS for my opinion, I think this section of a ruling was on the right track…
(a) The concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the "callous indifference," Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 , that was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Pp. 672-673.
I’m would like to see the lemon test entirely replaced with something along those lines, allowing more rather than restricting more..

Um. I glad you at least looked at some of the citations that I gave you.

I hate to break it to you, but you are not quoting from the opinion. You are quoting from the syllabus. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/200/321.html ), 200 U.S. 321, 337 (1906). Nonetheless, the syllabus is a fairly accurate summation of the actual words of that particular 5-4 decision.

Moreover, it is most ironic that you support the thinking of Lynch and at the same time decry the Supreme Court's jurisprudence as an "extreme" and argue for a wholesale change in direction.

(BTW, you might note that I said originally that the wall of seperation of Church and State was merely a useful metaphor. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9037876&postcount=82 Obviously, Chief Justice Burger (or at least as he opined in Lynch) and I disagree on how useful it is. )

And I explained why I think they might be alright.

Actually, you didn't. You were very vague.

Sorry, you didn't force me to admit anything. I have recognized all along here the wall of separation of Church and State should lie is a tricky and debatable question.
*snip*
Nonetheless, I still think my view is right and yours is ignorance. :p


Yes, yes, your overall viewpoint and disrespect for all that disagree with you is well expressed in nearly all of your posts, regularly displayed for all to see…

But looking past that point though, perhaps your problem is really that you've spent all of your time in the legal realm, in the case law and you've not yet fully explored the outside world and why the find law world exists in the first place.

Perhaps you could spend some time in the Library of Congress. It seems to have some records of the historical events surrounding the ideas behind the foundation of America and how it was in fact more than just a secular event, but a religious freedom event as well and that the very people that fought for and established this country did so with an entirely different concept in mind than the one you seem to have in mind for us now…

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

Some examples for those of you that don't like reading stuff that might take more than two minutes.

The Revolution strengthened millennialist strains in American theology. At the beginning of the war some ministers were persuaded that, with God's help, America might become "the principal Seat of the glorious Kingdom which Christ shall erect upon Earth in the latter Days." Victory over the British was taken as a sign of God's partiality for America and stimulated an outpouring of millennialist expectations--the conviction that Christ would rule on earth for 1,000 years. This attitude combined with a groundswell of secular optimism about the future of America to create the buoyant mood of the new nation that became so evident after Jefferson assumed the presidency in 1801.
Many Revolutionary War clergy argued that the war against Britain was approved by God. In this sermon Abraham Keteltas celebrated the American effort as "the cause of truth, against error and falsehood . . .the cause of pure and undefiled religion, against bigotry, superstition, and human invention . . .in short, it is the cause of heaven against hell--of the kind Parent of the Universe against the prince of darkness, and the destroyer of the human race."

Creationism is within my faith. My own personal faith will only leave this earth with my death. In my faith God's word goes will never be extinct.

the US was founded by the outcasts of europe, all those religious whackos who were rejected because of their extreme beliefs founded the USA, no wonder its such a "god fearing" country..... let them have their superstitions if it makes them happy, but stop them if they try to force it on others

the US was founded by the outcasts of europe, all those religious whackos who were rejected because of their extreme beliefs founded the USA, no wonder its such a "god fearing" country..... let them have their superstitions if it makes them happy, but stop them if they try to force it on others

Absolutely right, can't argue with that... Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us to which enlightened country you are in?

Separation of church and state simply means there shouldnt be a state religion people simply point out christian figures because people are ofended by christianity for whatever stupid reason. if there was a buddha in the supreme court no one would give a shit as opposed to God

Yes, yes, your overall viewpoint and disrespect for all that disagree with you is well expressed in nearly all of your posts, regularly displayed for all to see…

Way to take a joke. :rolleyes:

Are you of the opinion you are wrong? No. I'm not either.

I have great respect for many I debate on here. I don't have great respect for ad hominem attacks, such as those to which you are resorting.

But looking past that point though, perhaps your problem is really that you've spent all of your time in the legal realm, in the case law and you've not yet fully explored the outside world and why the find law world exists in the first place.

And who was accusing someone of showing "disrepect" for thinking someone was ignorant? :rolleyes: You've not just accused me of being ignorant on a specific subject, but living a life of ignorance.

If you want to debate a legal issue, expect to hear about the law. :headbang:

But you don't know a damn thing about my life, bucko. I've spent plenty of time "in the outside world," thank you very much.

I don't know a damn thing about you either. I don't know if you are 15 or 45. I've agreed with you a few times when I thought you were right. I've disagreed with you when, in my opinion, you are wrong. Sorry if you can't take aggressive argument. You dish it out. I thought you could take it.

When I think someone is ignorant of a subject or a point of view, I will point it out and/or educate them. Sometimes I am less polite than perhaps I should be.

If you wish to be specific about what you think I am ignorant about, you may be correct. I am ignorant about many subjects. But your vague assertion that I lack life experience is just a petty and laughably erroneous insult.

Perhaps you could spend some time in the Library of Congress. It seems to have some records of the historical events surrounding the ideas behind the foundation of America and how it was in fact more than just a secular event, but a religious freedom event as well and that the very people that fought for and established this country did so with an entirely different concept in mind than the one you seem to have in mind for us now…

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

Some examples for those of you that don't like reading stuff that might take more than two minutes.

The Revolution strengthened millennialist strains in American theology. At the beginning of the war some ministers were persuaded that, with God's help, America might become "the principal Seat of the glorious Kingdom which Christ shall erect upon Earth in the latter Days." Victory over the British was taken as a sign of God's partiality for America and stimulated an outpouring of millennialist expectations--the conviction that Christ would rule on earth for 1,000 years. This attitude combined with a groundswell of secular optimism about the future of America to create the buoyant mood of the new nation that became so evident after Jefferson assumed the presidency in 1801.

*yawn*

None of this is vaguely relevant. No one has ever denied that religion has existed or played a significant role (sometimes for good and sometimes for ill) in the history of our nation.

But you got one thing right: religious freedom is central to the First Amendment. Religious freedom is protected by both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Using government to support a religion is the antithesis of religion freedom -- that is the whole point of the Establishment Clause. :headbang:

How can you possibly look at the history and current status of our nation -- at how religions of all kinds, but particularly Christianity, has and is flourishing here -- and claim that religion is oppressed by the separation of Church and State?

Madison was right. Both Church and State flourish when they are separated. The only plan I've said I "have in mind for us now" is that we maintain that wall of separation.

Are ad hominem attacks all you have left to contribute?

I have skimmed through this post, but I haven't read everything so I'm sorry if I repeat any ones post without quoting.

But I do wonder why everytime time I have seen this issue come up in a forum, someone always suggests the founding fathers were religious, the nation was created to be religious, etc.

Whether they are true or not, using them as justification is still false. Speaking specifically, one is an appeal to authority (the founding fathers), and the other an appeal to tradition (purpose for founding the United States).

Now I do respect the courage and talent of the founding fathers. But we live in a differant world today with differant needs.

Why should we care what the founding fathers intended?

What the founding fathers intended is important because they left us the laws that we use. What part of this is hard to understand? If you want to change it, you can, but you need to go in there and mix things up a bit, you know, make people and states vote on rewording the amendments and what not. You shouldn't just be able to go off like the ACLU and start pretending like it doesn't say what we always thought it said, but that it says something new now that only they can understand and interpret for us.

Its meaning is slowly being changed anyway, from the outside in, dispite not changing the constitution nor amendments themselves. It's being done and confirmed, endorsed by it's own changes from case to case as the years go by. Cat can attest to it via the series of court cases that have slowly whittled away at it's original meaning and shows how we've gotten to where we are today. But really (among other things as well) public property was never intended to be forbidden to public religious practice by the community:


The Old House of Representatives
Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.

Reserved Seats at Capitol Services
Here is a description, by an early Washington "insider," Margaret Bayard Smith (1778-1844), a writer and social critic and wife of Samuel Harrison Smith, publisher of the National Intelligencer, of Jefferson's attendance at church services in the House of Representatives: "Jefferson during his whole administration was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first day sabbath, and the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him."

Jefferson at Church in the Capitol
In his diary, Manasseh Cutler (1742-1823), a Federalist Congressman from Massachusetts and Congregational minister, notes that on Sunday, January 3, 1802, John Leland preached a sermon on the text "Behold a greater than Solomon is here. Jef[ferso]n was present." Thomas Jefferson attended this church service in Congress, just two days after issuing the Danbury Baptist letter. Leland, a celebrated Baptist minister, had moved from Orange County, Virginia, and was serving a congregation in Cheshire, Massachusetts, from which he had delivered to Jefferson a gift of a "mammoth cheese," weighing 1235 pounds.

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html


It’s hard to imagine how the man who coined the phrase and wrote it into our history books, a wall of separation between church and state, could have possibly meant what the ACLU seems to think it means today.

What the founding fathers intended is important because they left us the laws that we use. What part of this is hard to understand?

But intent isn't important for use. My case in two points:

1) We continue to use the law without a clear understanding of the founders' intent, evidenced by the ongoing historical debate.

2) The law itself doesn't clearly signal the founders' intent, evidenced again by the historical, as opposed to purely legal, debate.f

So, simply put, we don't need to know intent to be able to use the law.

Try again Ph33rdom. Either show me why we need intent to use the law, or come up with something else.

Its meaning is slowly being changed anyway, from the outside in, dispite not changing the constitution nor amendments themselves. It's being done and confirmed, endorsed by it's own changes from case to case as the years go by. Cat can attest to it via the series of court cases that have slowly whittled away at it's original meaning and shows how we've gotten to where we are today.

Well. You can look at this as 'whittling' away the original meaning, and I imagine you do because it's convinient for your personal convinctions. However, you can also look at it as an evolving process where the meaning has changed to better suit the needs and desires of a new generation of Americans.

But intent isn't important for use. My case in two points:

1) We continue to use the law without a clear understanding of the founders' intent, evidenced by the ongoing historical debate.

2) The law itself doesn't clearly signal the founders' intent, evidenced again by the historical, as opposed to purely legal, debate.f

So, simply put, we don't need to know intent to be able to use the law.

Try again Ph33rdom. Either show me why we need intent to use the law, or come up with something else.

That's just about nuts. What do you mean intent doesn't matter? If not then the second amendment could mean that militias have the right to own castle's (keeps) and grizzlies limbs (bear Arms). As language evolves and changes, we need to remember intent, it’s the only way to do it. Using anything other than intent results in absurdity and it was a silly position to take on your part.



Well. You can look at this as 'whittling' away the original meaning, and I imagine you do because it's convinient for your personal convinctions. However, you can also look at it as an evolving process where the meaning has changed to better suit the needs and desires of a new generation of Americans.

Then change the constitution. Go out there and amend the amendments then. It's not illegal, it's not wrong, it's been done before and it will happen again. If the Constitution needs to be changed, change it, lets start putting it out there and getting the people arguing and voting on what the new versions of the amendments should say or should be changed to.

But to sit there and pretend that all one needs to do is to confuse everyone to what it says now and that they'll believe anything they are told thereafter is wrong. It’s not the way should take place. Come out of the shadows and put the ideas out there and we'll hash it out.

If not then the second amendment could mean that militias have the right to own castle's (keeps) and grizzlies limbs (bear Arms).

What?

That's a problem of language and defintion as much as intent. We don't need to know if the founders' supported gun ownership to know that when they said 'arms' they meant firearms.

As language evolves and changes, we need to remember intent, it’s the only way to do it.

...because?

Other than conjuring up some undesirable scenarios you haven't shown why we need intent to use the law.

Why do we outlaw murder? Theft? Jaywalking? Do you claim to know the intent of all the legislatures who have made such laws? Do we need to know why legislature xyz said murder is illegal to put into affect such a law?

Certainly not. As long as we understand the language of the law we don't need to know its original purpose.

But I do understand your appeal to have the process out in the open. If we want the Constitution to go one way it should be accomplished through the institutions already set out for that function.

However, I am not talking about changing the constitution, I am talking about changing the way we look at it. That is going to happen without engaging in official mechanisms of the state and law. And what I'm saying is that our current understanding of the Constitution is just as valid as the Founders' understanding of the Constitution. It was written for us just as much as it was for them.

Except, our needs are far more important than the opinions of a few men who aren't going to feel the legal and poltical consequences of our choices.

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!


As the official representative of the 14% I would like to say...ahem:

Fuck you. Don't tell me to sit down you preachy bastard.

What the founding fathers intended is important because they left us the laws that we use. What part of this is hard to understand? If you want to change it, you can, but you need to go in there and mix things up a bit, you know, make people and states vote on rewording the amendments and what not. You shouldn't just be able to go off like the ACLU and start pretending like it doesn't say what we always thought it said, but that it says something new now that only they can understand and interpret for us.

Actually, several of the Founders were rather clear on the idea that we should not be bound by there intent. Even more so, we were not to simply follow their flawed examples. They recognized they were human, not gods.

The Constitution itself creates a body to interpret and apply the Constitution: the Supreme Court (and lower courts). :rolleyes:

Its meaning is slowly being changed anyway, from the outside in, dispite not changing the constitution nor amendments themselves. It's being done and confirmed, endorsed by it's own changes from case to case as the years go by. Cat can attest to it via the series of court cases that have slowly whittled away at it's original meaning and shows how we've gotten to where we are today.

Bullshit.

The central meaning of the First Amendment as creating a wall of separation of Church and State has been quite consistently held since the Supreme Court first addressed the issue. Since at least 1887.


But really (among other things as well) public property was never intended to be forbidden to public religious practice by the community:


The Old House of Representatives
Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.

Reserved Seats at Capitol Services
Here is a description, by an early Washington "insider," Margaret Bayard Smith (1778-1844), a writer and social critic and wife of Samuel Harrison Smith, publisher of the National Intelligencer, of Jefferson's attendance at church services in the House of Representatives: "Jefferson during his whole administration was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first day sabbath, and the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him."

Jefferson at Church in the Capitol
In his diary, Manasseh Cutler (1742-1823), a Federalist Congressman from Massachusetts and Congregational minister, notes that on Sunday, January 3, 1802, John Leland preached a sermon on the text "Behold a greater than Solomon is here. Jef[ferso]n was present." Thomas Jefferson attended this church service in Congress, just two days after issuing the Danbury Baptist letter. Leland, a celebrated Baptist minister, had moved from Orange County, Virginia, and was serving a congregation in Cheshire, Massachusetts, from which he had delivered to Jefferson a gift of a "mammoth cheese," weighing 1235 pounds.

It’s hard to imagine how the man who coined the phrase and wrote it into our history books, a wall of separation between church and state, could have possibly meant what the ACLU seems to think it means today.

Your selections from that particular Library of Congress exhibit are tellingly selective.

But would you suggest that the Alien and Sedition Act guide our interpretation of the rest of the First Amendment?

The Founders were not perfect. Far from. Slavery ring a bell?

We do not live in the 18th Century or the early 19th Century. Slavish adherence to practices in which the Founders did not live up their ideals would itself violate the principles of the Constitution.

That's just about nuts. What do you mean intent doesn't matter? If not then the second amendment could mean that militias have the right to own castle's (keeps) and grizzlies limbs (bear Arms). As language evolves and changes, we need to remember intent, it’s the only way to do it. Using anything other than intent results in absurdity and it was a silly position to take on your part.

To use anything other than original intent to interpret the law is "absurd" and "silly." Spoken like someone that has never studied the question.

The idea of using original intent to interpret the Constitution is just one of many schools or methods of interpretation. It has some strengths and some flaws. Are you aware that Justice Scalia is more a supporter of textualism than original intent?

Here is some easy to follow resources re Constitutional interpretation:
Theories of Constitutional Interpretation (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html)
Constitutional Interpretation (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html)
The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Interpretation (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect02.htm)
Constitutional Interpretation (http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu/~rickless/DOC2-2004/Lecture7-2004.htm)

Even proponents of the use of original intent in interpreting the Constitution recognize its limits and do not propose its sole or slavish use.

Among the many problems with originalism:
1. We have amended the Constitution -- most significantly in adopting the 14th Amendent. Prior to the 14th, for example, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. So much of the paradigm under which the Framers of the Constitution thought about issue has changed.

2. Whose intent? Who counts as a Founder/Framer and who does not? Among the potential Founders there are often strong disagreements on basic issues. Which Founder's view should prevail on which issues? Why?

3. The Constitution was not intended to be limited to the intentions of its authors. The original Constitution was principally, even overwhelmingly, dedicated to concerns of process and structure and not to the identification and preservation of specific policies are values. Remember, the addition of the Bill of Rights was a compromise. The Framers used deliberately open-ended clauses and included provisions such as the Ninth Amendment. They also tended to be strong believers in the use of natural law as a basis for jurisprudence.

The mystical notion that we can simply rely on the subjective intent of "the Founders" is -- among other things -- so naive, impractical, dangerous, and itself contrary to such "intent."

From an strict originalist standpoint, the unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/483.html ), 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was wrongly decided. Do you agree?

Then change the constitution. Go out there and amend the amendments then. It's not illegal, it's not wrong, it's been done before and it will happen again. If the Constitution needs to be changed, change it, lets start putting it out there and getting the people arguing and voting on what the new versions of the amendments should say or should be changed to.

But to sit there and pretend that all one needs to do is to confuse everyone to what it says now and that they'll believe anything they are told thereafter is wrong. It’s not the way should take place. Come out of the shadows and put the ideas out there and we'll hash it out.

LOL.

Again, the Constitution designated the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. The whole point of having a Constitution and judicial review is that not every issue must be -- or even should be -- voted on by the people. Apparently you think Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html ), 5 US 137 (1803), was wrongly decided as well. :rolleyes:

Moreover, who is hiding in the shadows?

In the broad sense, the charge is absurd. The Supreme Court is a public entity. Its docket is a matter of public record as are its decisions. These days you can read the briefs filed with a simple Google search.

In the sense of this debate, the charge is even more ridiculous. You are the one that keeps being vague. You refer to a "middle ground" that you won't define and reject attempts by the Court to compromise on a middle ground as "sending mixed signals."

State a specific issue/set of facts. We'll take a position. It would be nice if you would do the same -- instead of all this wailing and gnashing of teeth.

As the official representative of the 14% I would like to say...ahem:

Fuck you. Don't tell me to sit down you preachy bastard.

You should probably read the entire post before saying such a thing. I didn't actually say this. I just posted and email I received and don't agree with. Our constitution protects against tyranny by the majority for this specific reason.

Actually, several of the Founders were rather clear on the idea that we should not be bound by there intent. Even more so, we were not to simply follow their flawed examples. They recognized they were human, not gods.

The Constitution itself creates a body to interpret and apply the Constitution: the Supreme Court (and lower courts). :rolleyes:



Bullshit.

The central meaning of the First Amendment as creating a wall of separation of Church and State has been quite consistently held since the Supreme Court first addressed the issue. Since at least 1887.

I did say it was changeable, when did I not? But I said you need to really change it, not just pretend that it says something different now than it did before. But like you pointed out yourself, it was almost a hundred years old before anyone had to have a court case to figure out what it meant…(provided the 1887 date is right and I’ll take your word for it).


Your selections from that particular Library of Congress exhibit are tellingly selective. Of course it’s selective, I was trying to make a point. Why would I quote unrelated selections? But as a matter of fact, the selection I did pick was undeniably important to this issue in particular. Thomas Jefferson both coined the phrase that the ACLU is trying to expand AND he wasn’t a Christian. If any of the founding fathers would be on the side of ending all religious expression at all, it would have been him. But I’ve shown that not even he expressed such a dogmatic orthodox fundamentalist view of what he himself wrote. He thought it was fine to allow even church services in the very supreme court itself, provided it was voluntary to attend.


We do not live in the 18th Century or the early 19th Century. Slavish adherence to practices in which the Founders did not live up their ideals would itself violate the principles of the Constitution.

No, we do not. So change the amendment if it doesn’t work anymore. I personally think it’s just fine, but then I don’t have a problem with the community being allowed to express their religious disposition even in the public spaces.

To use anything other than original intent to interpret the law is "absurd" and "silly." Spoken like someone that has never studied the question.

The idea of using original intent to interpret the Constitution is just one of many schools or methods of interpretation. It has some strengths and some flaws. Are you aware that Justice Scalia is more a supporter of textualism than original intent?

*snip*

3. The Constitution was not intended to be limited to the intentions of its authors. The original Constitution was principally, even overwhelmingly, dedicated to concerns of process and structure and not to the identification and preservation of specific policies are values. Remember, the addition of the Bill of Rights was a compromise. The Framers used deliberately open-ended clauses and included provisions such as the Ninth Amendment. They also tended to be strong believers in the use of natural law as a basis for jurisprudence.

The mystical notion that we can simply rely on the subjective intent of "the Founders" is -- among other things -- so naive, impractical, dangerous, and itself contrary to such "intent."

Again I say, then change it the right way. Start amending the amendments themselves, stop pretending that they don’t say what they say.

Moreover, who is hiding in the shadows? The ACLU is hiding in innuendo and intimidation to advance their political beliefs.



In the broad sense, the charge is absurd. The Supreme Court is a public entity. Its docket is a matter of public record as are its decisions. These days you can read the briefs filed with a simple Google search.

In the sense of this debate, the charge is even more ridiculous. You are the one that keeps being vague. You refer to a "middle ground" that you won't define and reject attempts by the Court to compromise on a middle ground as "sending mixed signals."

State a specific issue/set of facts. We'll take a position. It would be nice if you would do the same -- instead of all this wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I’ll continue to submit that I unabashedly believe there is a middle ground, that it is equally absured to want a theocracy, but no more so than to attempt abolitionist denial of religious expression in the public properities of the communities of America, both are wrong historically and by intent of the forefathers.

You should probably read the entire post before saying such a thing. I didn't actually say this. I just posted and email I received and don't agree with. Our constitution protects against tyranny by the majority for this specific reason.

Hey bright eyes, way to edit your post after seeing mine...you edited yours to be clear about your opinion at 7.47 and I posted this before that. Your correct answer was "ooops I forgot to put that in the original post."

Jefferson at Church in the Capitol
In his diary, Manasseh Cutler (1742-1823), a Federalist Congressman from Massachusetts and Congregational minister, notes that on Sunday, January 3, 1802, John Leland preached a sermon on the text "Behold a greater than Solomon is here. Jef[ferso]n was present." Thomas Jefferson attended this church service in Congress, just two days after issuing the Danbury Baptist letter. Leland, a celebrated Baptist minister, had moved from Orange County, Virginia, and was serving a congregation in Cheshire, Massachusetts, from which he had delivered to Jefferson a gift of a "mammoth cheese," weighing 1235 pounds. [/indent]
.

You made a bad mistake referencing John Leland. He was a gigantic proponent of the seperation of church and state.

As the official representative of the 14% I would like to say...ahem:

Fuck you. Don't tell me to sit down you preachy bastard.

The important 14% again. :rolleyes:

You made a bad mistake referencing John Leland. He was a gigantic proponent of the seperation of church and state.

Why? I'm in agreement with it. I’m not advocating that the government should start it's own religion nor pick one to finance over all others, I'm saying that they (including the courts) should stay out of the way of the people to pursue and express their own religions (even when on public property - for example: Boy Scouts and voluntary after-school religious studies on school grounds).

You know, this part (in bold): 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.

Hey bright eyes, way to edit your post after seeing mine...you edited yours to be clear about your opinion at 7.47 and I posted this before that. Your correct answer was "ooops I forgot to put that in the original post."

I edited the bottom to make it more clear since so many people apparently ignore the top, but the top clearly states that I was looking for evidence to refute the email as can be seen quoted by several other people since the beginning of the thread.

You know, this part (in bold): 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.

Ahh but there is the problem. Christians think evangalising falls under that as well.

Ahh but there is the problem. Christians think evangalising falls under that as well.

The first female speaker in the house of representatives was a evangelical Christian preacher lady giving a sermon on how they should get born again... So what were you saying?

The first woman to preach before the House (and probably the first woman to speak officially in Congress under any circumstances) was the English evangelist, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832), who conducted a service on January 12, 1806. Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr were among those in a "crowded audience." Sizing up the congregation, Ripley concluded that "very few" had been born again and broke into an urgent, camp meeting style exhortation, insisting that "Christ's Body was the Bread of Life and His Blood the drink of the righteous."

So, exactly what is your reason for suggesting that evangelical Christians don't have a right to proselytize?

The first female speaker in the house of representatives was a evangelical Christian preacher lady giving a sermon on how they should get born again... So what were you saying?

The first woman to preach before the House (and probably the first woman to speak officially in Congress under any circumstances) was the English evangelist, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832), who conducted a service on January 12, 1806. Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr were among those in a "crowded audience." Sizing up the congregation, Ripley concluded that "very few" had been born again and broke into an urgent, camp meeting style exhortation, insisting that "Christ's Body was the Bread of Life and His Blood the drink of the righteous."

So, exactly what is your reason for suggesting that evangelical Christians don't have a right to proselytize?

Yup and they also passed laws that were in violation of the bill of rights. Fortunately, we woke up and started honoring the bill of rights as they were written. Proselytizing is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Would you be okay if the Church of Satan practiced in the house?

Why? I'm in agreement with it. I’m not advocating that the government should start it's own religion nor pick one to finance over all others, I'm saying that they (including the courts) should stay out of the way of the people to pursue and express their own religions (even when on public property - for example: Boy Scouts and voluntary after-school religious studies on school grounds).

You know, this part (in bold): 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.

:headbang:

OK, so now you are not opposed to the separation of Church and State, you are just entirely ignorant of what it means.

(You has said off-and-on you support separation of Church and State, but then you argue against it at the same time. :rolleyes: Regardless, your "examples" of supposed over-zealous separation are simply erroneous.)

Voluntary after-school religious studies are permitted on school grounds. In fact, they are guaranteed equal access with other voluntary activities. What is not allowed is preferential treatment that allows only or caters to religious groups.

Same with the Boy Scouts. And I know you know this because we discussed it before. The Boy Scouts declared themselves a sectarian religious organization in order to claim an exemption from discrimination laws. Prior to that, they were given lots of direct government support and preferential treatment -- despite their more innocuous religious teachings. Now, they can no longer be given special government support because they are a private religious group. They are still allowed to use public property. They have the same right to do so as other groups. They may even rent public property for their exclusive use -- so long as it is on terms that are not different than those given to other groups.

You seem to think the separation of Church and State is only about the Establishment Clause. That is simply wrong. The separation of Church and State also protects the free exercise of religion.

Government endorsement or support of a religion, particularly a specific religious sect, does not further the free exercise of religion. It is contrary to it. It discriminates against all other religious views and violates freedom of conscience.

Yup and they also passed laws that were in violation of the bill of rights. Fortunately, we woke up and started honoring the bill of rights as they were written. Proselytizing is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Would you be okay if the Church of Satan practiced in the house?

Provided they are recognized, during off hours, and no body was forced to attend, I suppose so.

:headbang:

OK, so now you are not opposed to the separation of Church and State, you are just entirely ignorant of what it means.
No, I just disagree with the ACLU on how it is to be enforced and what is or is not an offense against it...


You seem to think the separation of Church and State is only about the Establishment Clause. That is simply wrong. The separation of Church and State also protects the free exercise of religion.

Of course it is, that's been my entire point. Allowing the public to exhibit their religious views as a community is well within their rights and are protected, even on public property.


Government endorsement or support of a religion, particularly a specific religious sect, does not further the free exercise of religion. It is contrary to it. It discriminates against all other religious views and violates freedom of conscience.

I totally agree, who's advocating the government should endorse a religion?

Provided they are recognized, during off hours, and no body was forced to attend, I suppose so.

Recognized? An obvious point in your insert is that she appeared in an official capacity. She cannot appear in an official capacity to proselytize. It's very simple. The simple fact that it must be recognized suggests that the state has some role in religion. It doesn't. If they allow religious services then why shouldn't the green party be able to mee there on off hours. How about Nazis? People have freedom of speech but that speech need not and should not take place in federal buildings unless it is in an official capacity, otherwise it amounts to government support of that speech. And quite simply proselytizing is not an official capacity that should be allowed.

Recognized? An obvious point in your insert is that she appeared in an official capacity. She cannot appear in an official capacity to proselytize. It's very simple. The simple fact that it must be recognized suggests that the state has some role in religion. It doesn't. If they allow religious services then why shouldn't the green party be able to mee there on off hours. How about Nazis? People have freedom of speech but that speech need not and should not take place in federal buildings unless it is in an official capacity, otherwise it amounts to government support of that speech. And quite simply proselytizing is not an official capacity that should be allowed.

Why? Any group can rent or borrow public property, what make a religous group less qualified to do so? I don't want to restrict anyone else either, so it's not favortism nor endorsement.

FYI: she showed up to to a service on a Sunday Morning, when the house was out of session.

Of course it is, that's been my entire point. Allowing the public to exhibit their religious views as a community is well within their rights and are protected, even on public property.

False. Do you think a single Jew in a community of Christians is going to feel as if his religious freedom is protected by a government that allows "the community" to practice their religion on public property? Exactly how does preventing you from putting up a nativity scene at a courthouse prohibit you from freely practicing your religion? Are you not still allowed to put that same scene up on church property, at home, even at work, at malls, etc.? Certainly, you can see how some might see allowing the practice of your religion on government property as endorsement and as a problem. Now to which end should the government and the courts err, on protecting the free practice of religion and preventing any religious practice on government property, or on the side of allowing practice of religion to occur anywhere and risk some people seeing that as endorsement? The answer to the courts and nearly everyone else is obvious.

Why? Any group can rent or borrow public property, what make a religous group less qualified to do so? I don't want to restrict anyone else either, so it's not favortism nor endorsement.

FYI: she showed up to to a service on a Sunday Morning, when the house was out of session.

Really? So if I showed up next week and asked to borrow the house of representatives during off hours, I would be permitted to do so? I wish to have a KKK meeting. I wonder what the response will be. Hell, let's take something less offensive. I want to use it for a pro-choice rally for the weekend. Again, I wonder what the response will be.

Why wouldn't you be able to see menorah displayed as well? And a synagogue service in the court house on Saturday...

Really? So if I showed up next week and asked to borrow the house of representatives during off hours, I would be permitted to do so? I wish to have a KKK meeting. I wonder what the response will be. Hell, let's take something less offensive. I want to use it for a pro-choice rally for the weekend. Again, I wonder what the response will be.

That's silly, they have pro-choice rallies on the steps of the capital (s) all the time.

And for your information, the KKK and the Nazi do get permits to rally on public property as well, so why stop the religous people as well?

That's silly, they have pro-choice rallies on the steps of the capital (s) all the time.

And for your information, the KKK and the Nazi do get permits to rally on public property as well, so why stop the religous people as well?

So do religious groups, in fact. That's a far cry from holding proceedings in the house of representatives. You're saying that the house should be used as a church. For the type of rallies you are describing you need a permit that says a specific time and purpose of the rally. I'm certain if you wished you could bring a nativity scene with you, and just take it with you when you go. There is a significant difference between staging and outdoor rally on public grounds with a permit and specific rules and permanently errecting the ten commandments outside of a courthouse.

I did say it was changeable, when did I not? But I said you need to really change it, not just pretend that it says something different now than it did before. But like you pointed out yourself, it was almost a hundred years old before anyone had to have a court case to figure out what it meant…(provided the 1887 date is right and I’ll take your word for it).

First of all, nice job of only selectively answering some of my points. :rolleyes:

Second, the Court is not "pretend" that the First Amendment says something different now than it did before. As required by the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been interpreting and applying the terms of the Constitution. If you bothered to read the Court cases I've cited, such as [I]Everson and Reynolds, the Court has examined the history and intended purpose of the First Amendment at length in its opinions. You are the one denying the meaning of the words and their long-established meaning.

Third, I never said the first case regarding the First Amendment was in 1887. What I said was the Supreme Court has expressly adopted the phrase "wall of separation of Church and State" as an apt metaphor since then. But I mispoke, it was 1878:

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining [98 U.S. 145, 163] heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration 'a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested 'to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.'

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a 'Memorial and Remonstrance,' which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated 'that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,' was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, 'for establishing religious freedom,' drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. [98 U.S. 145, 164] 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-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 and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

Reynolds v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

Fourth, most jurisprudence regarding the Bill of Rights did not start until after 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Prior to then, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

Fifth, I don't know for certain when the first Establishment Clause case arose. I could look into it, but it is not relevant. The inference you draw that no one "had to have a court case to figure out what it meant" is silly and cuts both ways.

The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority.
--Watson v. Jones (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/80/679.html ), 80 U.S. 679 (1871)

Of course it’s selective, I was trying to make a point. Why would I quote unrelated selections? But as a matter of fact, the selection I did pick was undeniably important to this issue in particular. Thomas Jefferson both coined the phrase that the ACLU is trying to expand AND he wasn’t a Christian. If any of the founding fathers would be on the side of ending all religious expression at all, it would have been him. But I’ve shown that not even he expressed such a dogmatic orthodox fundamentalist view of what he himself wrote. He thought it was fine to allow even church services in the very supreme court itself, provided it was voluntary to attend.

First, I've already explained why a historical pissing match about "well in 1821 the did this" and "but in 1803" they did this is stupid and irrelevant. You've conveniently ignored all those arguments.

Most of your examples do not carry the import that you think. Nor should we be guided by the actions of the Founders when they did not live up to the word of the Consitution: do you think the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 should guide our understanding of freedom of speech and other liberties?

Moreover, for every anti-separation example or quote you can give, I can give an example of Jefferson, Madison, or other Founders advocating a stricter separation of Church and State than is accepted now. Both Madison and Jefferson were against Congressional chaplains. Both were against any religious proclamations by the Congress or President -- including a national days of thanksgiving.

Second, we already discussed Jefferson's particular phrase is cited as a metaphor said to illustrate the scope and effect of the First Amendment re religion. No one has suggested a slavish adherence to Jefferson's views on religion -- you would be even more unhappy if we did.

Moreover, James Madison, know as the Father of the Constitution, and other Founders also believed and frequently wrote about the separation of Church and State -- using similar phrases. In 1819, he wrote, “The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.” Another example:

[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.

-- Letter to Rev. Adams (1832).


No, we do not. So change the amendment if it doesn’t work anymore. I personally think it’s just fine, but then I don’t have a problem with the community being allowed to express their religious disposition even in the public spaces.

You also are either being deliberately disingenuous about what you support or do not understand the state of the law regarding the freedom of religion.

Individuals, groups, and the community are allowed to express religious views -- even in public spaces.

What is not allowed is government endorsement, support, or favoritism. That violates both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

Again I say, then change it the right way. Start amending the amendments themselves, stop pretending that they don’t say what they say.

Again, this is a false charge. A feeble strawman.

The ACLU is hiding in innuendo and intimidation to advance their political beliefs.

Utter bullshit. Such lies should be beneath you.

I’ll continue to submit that I unabashedly believe there is a middle ground, that it is equally absured to want a theocracy, but no more so than to attempt abolitionist denial of religious expression in the public properities of the communities of America, both are wrong historically and by intent of the forefathers.

You contradict yourself and use either vague meaningless phrases or disingenuous code words.

You agreed with the Everson Court's summation of the meaning of the Establishment Clause -- and then you attack it in your next breath.

Religious expression is protected by the First Amendment. Government religion is forbidden by it. It is a simple concept.

Once again, your beliefs about the historical record and the Founder's intent are both less important than you think and erroneous.

You "unabashedly believe there is a middle ground" but the only hints at specifics you give are vague suggestions that are openly extreme.

What specifically would you allow that is forbidden now? Which Supreme Court cases were decided incorrectly?

In other words, other than alternating between endorsing separation of Church and State and attacking it, do you have anything substantive to say?

Why wouldn't you be able to see menorah displayed as well? And a synagogue service in the court house on Saturday...

Because there aren't enough days in the week to allow every religion to use the court house for service and it would still amount to subsidizing the church. Because there wouldn't be enough room to allow every religious symbol to put up and because some would be protested against and, likely, defamed that it would end up costing the taxpayers money to protect. Do you think I could go to Rural Town, Rural State, America and put up and upside down cross and expect it to be safe and respected the same as a regular cross? If I can't, then how am I being equally represented. If I'm atheist, can I put up an image of Charles Darwin's book on natural selection? Where does it end? What if I worship the Peanuts characters? I mean, come on, if Snoopy doesn't deserve to deified I don't know who does.

No, I just disagree with the ACLU on how it is to be enforced and what is or is not an offense against it...

Again, you are only selectively responding to my arguments. :rolleyes:

And you are being deliberatly vague and disingenuous. :rolleyes:

It is getting tiresome. Show some intellectual honesty.

You gave two examples of what were the alleged position of the ACLU and/or an alleged violation of the separation of Church and State according to the Supreme Court. I explained that in both instances the religious conduct in question was not opposed by the ACLU and is protected under the First Amendment. (In fact, the ACLU has brought cases enforcing the right of equal access on behalf of religious groups, specifically Christian groups.)

You were simply wrong. Admit it.

Of course it is, that's been my entire point. Allowing the public to exhibit their religious views as a community is well within their rights and are protected, even on public property.

You are using "exhibit their religious views" in a deliberately deceptive way.

Again, individual, groups, communities can express their religious views -- even on public property.

But that is different than using government to express your religious views.

I totally agree, who's advocating the government should endorse a religion?

Although you have been deliberately vague about what you do or do not support, the only examples you have given of anything actually forbidden under current law or even challenged by the Supreme Court involve government endorsement of religion.

Cat, you probably know this better than I do. Would it be permissable to hold services in a government building (the House of Representatives) during off-hours? My thinking is no, because it amounts to endorsement. Can specifically say why or why not? Thanks.

First off,the Founding Fathers were mostly Deists. Look it up and you'll see it might not juve with your Christianist vision of them.

Secondly, the Religious Right that has taken over this country are not Christians - they are Christianists. They are a bunch of theocrats determiend to push their version of Christianity onto all others and make the United State of America into the Theocratic States of America.

I for one wont' stand for it and I am tired of athiests, agnostics and non-Christians being treated with hatred by the Christianist Right in this country.

Inflammatory? yes. but try this on for size.

I believe organized religion in all forms is the most dangerous thing to have sprung from the mind of humanity. It has caused mroe bloodshed, hatred and bigotry than anything else over the span of history. It still causes hatred for those that are different, just the "different" has been shifted over the years.

First it was your neighboring city that had a different religion. then neighboring country. then people who had different skin color. then homosexuals. religion always needs someone to demonize to placate the masses of followers.

it's unfortunate so many otherwise intelligent people need the crutch of religion to tell them how to behave.

there. I said it. Religion is a crutch for the weak minded. and anyone who tries to force it onto me is in for a rude awakening - i'm tired of being meek about my opinions on this and just pretending if I smile and not the .

I long for a day when humanity outgrows the childishness of religion.

First off,the Founding Fathers were mostly Deists. Look it up and you'll see it might not juve with your Christianist vision of them.

Complete and utter nonsense. Most is a big word, a 'few' would be the proper word to use here.

Secondly, the Religious Right that has taken over this country are not Christians - they are Christianists. They are a bunch of theocrats determiend to push their version of Christianity onto all others and make the United State of America into the Theocratic States of America.

I for one wont' stand for it and I am tired of athiests, agnostics and non-Christians being treated with hatred by the Christianist Right in this country. I'm absolutely postitive that both sides are guilty of 'dissing' the other. Acting like it's all one sided isn't going to help now is it?


Inflammatory? yes. but try this on for size.

I believe organized religion in all forms is the most dangerous thing to have sprung from the mind of humanity. It has caused mroe bloodshed, hatred and bigotry than anything else over the span of history. It still causes hatred for those that are different, just the "different" has been shifted over the years.

First it was your neighboring city that had a different religion. then neighboring country. then people who had different skin color. then homosexuals. religion always needs someone to demonize to placate the masses of followers.

it's unfortunate so many otherwise intelligent people need the crutch of religion to tell them how to behave.

there. I said it. Religion is a crutch for the weak minded. and anyone who tries to force it onto me is in for a rude awakening - i'm tired of being meek about my opinions on this and just pretending if I smile and not the .

I long for a day when humanity outgrows the childishness of religion.
And Thus, a self proclaimed enemy of relious people everywhere, how do you expect them to behave to such slanderous accusations against them? Are you surprised they're actually fighting back?

it's unfortunate so many otherwise intelligent people need the crutch of religion to tell them how to behave.

It's unfortunate so many otherwise intelligent people need the crutch of blaming religion for every ill while giving no credit for the benefits.

You think prejudice and racism would not exist without religion? Really? You think all those wars wouldn't have just occurred under another guise? Really? You think that religion wasn't just an excuse to get away with colonization, expansion and agression that would have occurred regardless? Really?

This is right up there with people who claim there would be no morals without religion. That laws against theft, murder, molestation, etc. all stem from religion and that without religion we would all be animals. Neither their premise nor yours is true.

Again, you are only selectively responding to my arguments. :rolleyes:

And you are being deliberatly vague and disingenuous. :rolleyes:

It is getting tiresome. Show some intellectual honesty.

*snip*

I've responded to you selectively sometimes because from time to time your accusations don't make any sense. For example, you’ve accused me of not acknowledging the protections to worship, even directly right after I just got done I highlighting that section of the amendment for someone else...

However, I'll summarize, you and I disagree about this… current legislation has it that monuments need to have a secular purposes. I say they do not. I say historical AND current religious beliefs can be expressed via religious monuments donated or pre-existing on public property. Meaning, as I said before, the Lemon test should be done away with because the secular use section is not needed because the community does have the right to express their religious belief even if other ARE offended.

Protection from being offended is not a constitution protection. Why does the ACLU act like it is?


EDIT: sorry for all the double posting etc., this system seems to be off today, I'll try to respond but the connection problem seems to be an issue and locking up.

However, I'll summarize, you and I disagree about this… current legislation has it that monuments need to have a secular purposes. I say they do not. I say historical AND current religious beliefs can be expressed via religious monuments donated or pre-existing on public property. Meaning, as I said before, the Lemon test should be done away with because the secular use section is not needed because the community does have the right to express their religious belief even if other ARE offended.

So if my religious belief is that Jesus wanted us all to be stoned all the time can I put up a big Jesus next to your nativity scene with him toking up? Are you okay with that? If not, why can you express your beliefs and I can't? Oh, I know, because I'm not the community, right? You're not really fighting for the right of everyone to express their opinions freely, are you? This isn't about the free exercise of religion or you would be content with holding services in your temples and churches and keeping your religious symbols to their lawns. You're not. This is about your spreading the word by using government resources.

So if my religious belief is that Jesus wanted us all to be stoned all the time can I put up a big Jesus next to your nativity scene with him toking up? Are you okay with that? If not, why can you express your beliefs and I can't? Oh, I know, because I'm not the community, right? You're not really fighting for the right of everyone to express their opinions freely, are you? This isn't about the free exercise of religion or you would be content with holding services in your temples and churches and keeping your religious symbols to their lawns. You're not. This is about your spreading the word by using government resources.


You know, even today, all across America in small towns and big towns, Public school buildings (for example) are already, frequently, being used as places of worship for various congregations that don't have Churches/Temples/Synagogue buildings of their own. Perhaps they are new, or fires have burned down their old buildings, or whatever, but it’s already happening and you act like I'm making something up, out of the blue. America is big, really big. Go from Alaska down to Texas, there are many, many town halls and city centers, county offices etc., with different cultural influences inspiring them, they are all our heritage and there is nothing unconstitutional about them. Whether it be a sacred bear and eagle at an Navaho community center, or a Christian cross in a town hall in New England, perhaps a Mormon eye in Utah or a Ten Commandments plague in the court house ~ they are us, they have always been us, and we have a right to tell the ACLU to go sod off when they come and tell us it’s a breach of separation of church and state..

As to what constitutes a religion and what constitutes a government recognized religion, I have to admit I'm not going to be able to tell you all of which one are recognized and which are not. However, that's not the topic.

Now if you want to do nothing but insult my religion, then that's you exercising your free speech. But neither does that constitute a religious position now does it? Perhaps I could go around saying nasty things about Mohammed and Moses, Buddha and the Hindu, Native Americans and Wiccan stuff, but you know what, that wouldn't fall under freedom of religion either, it falls under freedom of speech. You are free to do it, no one is stopping you. I won't do it myself though, it wouldn’t be the Christian thing to do. I don't think it should be anything you should be proud of either though, if you want to take my advice, which you probably don’t.

You know, even today, all across America in small towns and big towns, Public school buildings (for example) are already, frequently, being used as places of worship for various congregations that don't have Churches/Temples/Synagogue buildings of their own. Perhaps they are new, or fires have burned down their old buildings, or whatever, but it’s already happening and you act like I'm making something up, out of the blue. America is big, really big. Go from Alaska down to Texas, there are many, many town halls and city centers, county offices etc., with different cultural influences inspiring them, they are all our heritage and there is nothing unconstitutional about them. Whether it be a sacred bear and eagle at an Navaho community center, or a Christian cross in a town hall in New England, perhaps a Mormon eye in Utah or a Ten Commandments plague in the court house ~ they are us, they have always been us, and we have a right to tell the ACLU to go sod off when they come and tell us it’s a breach of separation of church and state..

As to what constitutes a religion and what constitutes a government recognized religion, I have to admit I'm not going to be able to tell you all of which one are recognized and which are not. However, that's not the topic.

Now if you want to do nothing but insult my religion, then that's you exercising your free speech. But neither does that constitute a religious position now does it? Perhaps I could go around saying nasty things about Mohammed and Moses, Buddha and the Hindu, Native Americans and Wiccan stuff, but you know what, that wouldn't fall under freedom of religion either, it falls under freedom of speech. You are free to do it, no one is stopping you. I won't do it myself though, it wouldn’t be the Christian thing to do. I don't think it should be anything you should be proud of either though, if you want to take my advice, which you probably don’t.

Allowing you to use the local town hall or school for church is taking my property taxes and supporting your church with them. THAT is unconstitutional. You think it doesn't cost anything. Well, let's see. Do they turn up the heat on Sunday in the winter in South Dakota so the church service can be held (typically heat and air conditioning are turned down when not used)? Does that cost money? Do they have to clean up after the service? Does that cost money? Is it wear and tear on the seats, tables, etc.? Does that cost money? You have no right to take my money and force me to support your religion with it. PERIOD.

And some libertarian will say that we should not be allowed take his taxes and build a school at all, nor the road to the school, nor plow the snow with his tax money at all, ever.

At some point the community gets to say, "hey, you know what? We want to plow roads, keep roads in good shape and build schools, AND we may decide to make these facilities available to the public/community at large even if you libertarians don't like it."


At some point, the community is just going to say tough. We collect taxes and spend it on the community, if you don't like it, run for office.

EDIT: Start thinking about the subsidies in America before you answer... Farming, Sports, Businesses etc., community services in rural areas, cable TV, phones and community run internet services, food supplies, playgrounds and parks, etc. Allowing community groups (religious or otherwise) to use public facilities during off hours is hardly a worthwhile atrocity to be attacked (unless your agenda is actually anti-religious groups and not taxes).


You are using "exhibit their religious views" in a deliberately deceptive way.

Again, individual, groups, communities can express their religious views -- even on public property.

But that is different than using government to express your religious views.

How am I being deceptive? I don't think so.

When did I suggest that I wanted to use the government to express my religious views? I didn't do that either.

Allowing you to use the local town hall or school for church is taking my property taxes and supporting your church with them. THAT is unconstitutional. You think it doesn't cost anything. Well, let's see. Do they turn up the heat on Sunday in the winter in South Dakota so the church service can be held (typically heat and air conditioning are turned down when not used)? Does that cost money? Do they have to clean up after the service? Does that cost money? Is it wear and tear on the seats, tables, etc.? Does that cost money? You have no right to take my money and force me to support your religion with it. PERIOD.

Actually, to quote ACLU Lawyer Stuard Roth: "The law is clear: if a public school district permits other community organizations to utilize its facilities after-hours, it cannot slam the door in the face of a religious organization because of the religious nature of its message." That is, public use buildings, during non-operational hours, can be used for religious activities by community members, especially when state policy allows for use of public lands by other organizations. There are numerous examples in Virginia of interim churches (looking for or building new centers for worship) of using Public School buildings for their services in the interim. All people (even those who do not have children) pay into taxes used for funding Public lands (including the Public Schools)... If policy is adopted to allow organizations such as the United Way, American Cancer Society, and the like; to use the land and buildings... Under consistent rulings, courts will rule in favour of Churches as well to use the land. It's an all-or-nothing principle. (Such almost happened in MArion Massachusetts... except the School system settled out of court over the issue...) You can't have your cake and eat it too... Once you have classified a school as "Public Forum"; your entitlement over issue of use by a religious organization is moot in the eyes of the courts (as indeed it should be)... Off hours use of public lands for religious, or indeed any other form of "public forum" has never been construed to violate the establishment clause.

And some libertarian will say that we should not be allowed take his taxes and build a school at all, nor the road to the school, nor plow the snow with his tax money at all, ever.

At some point the community gets to say, "hey, you know what? We want to plow roads, keep roads in good shape and build schools, AND we may decide to make these facilities available to the public/community at large even if you libertarians don't like it."

At some point, the community is just going to say tough. We collect taxes and spend it on the community, if you don't like it, run for office.

EDIT: Start thinking about the subsidies in America before you answer... Farming, Sports, Businesses etc., community services in rural areas, cable TV, phones and community run internet services, food supplies, playgrounds and parks, etc. Allowing community groups (religious or otherwise) to use public facilities during off hours is hardly a worthwhile atrocity to be attacked (unless your agenda is actually anti-religious groups and not taxes).

Where in the constitution does it guarantee that I won't have to build schools or roads? I can tell specifically where it guarantees that I won't be forced by the government to support religion. Your analogy doesn't hold. The main difference being that my belief is already upheld in the current wording of the constitution, amendments 1 and 14.

EDIT: It's not about taxes or anti-religious. I spent two years going after work and cleaning a school supplement (more or less watching children while parents worked either after-school or during for smaller children) attached to and run by a church. They couldn't afford a janitor so I went and did it myself so they wouldn't have to shut the program down. The point is that freedom of religion means I get to decide if and what religious organizations I support with my dollar. To suggest otherwise is a bastardization of the first amendment regardless of who agrees with me.

Where in the constitution does it guarantee that I won't have to build schools or roads? I can tell specifically where it guarantees that I won't be forced by the government to support religion. Your analogy doesn't hold. The main difference being that my belief is already upheld in the current wording of the constitution, amendments 1 and 14.

Perhaps I could just repost what Tekania said? But no, I'll try to imagine why you are so adamant...


You've been influenced, at a slow pace to be sure, by endless years of education and “freedom of (from) religion” indoctrination. You've come to think of 'freedom of thought' as your ultimate aspiration and the inevitable conclusion of society itself. Perhaps you never attended a religious institution for any period of time, perhaps you were forced to attend for years and you despised it with a deep and well reason hatred, but either way, you've come to the conclusion that religious ideas and practices are backwards and or a hindrance to modern man and modern societies ability to get to your imagined ideal. But you've become overly judgmental and in this regard, a the truth is that you may have in fact become closed minded to this subject matter, bigoted and stereotyping religious activity as something that should be discouraged…

Step back, reassess, then post a reply of how incredibly naïve I am and I don’t know you etc., etc., etc., and who am I to say, and you aren’t prejudiced against religious people and organized religion at all, even though deep down you think the fundemamental evangelical Christian voters are the bane of this country and planet, perhaps now you won’t say it out loud?

Actually, to quote ACLU Lawyer Stuard Roth: "The law is clear: if a public school district permits other community organizations to utilize its facilities after-hours, it cannot slam the door in the face of a religious organization because of the religious nature of its message." That is, public use buildings, during non-operational hours, can be used for religious activities by community members, especially when state policy allows for use of public lands by other organizations. There are numerous examples in Virginia of interim churches (looking for or building new centers for worship) of using Public School buildings for their services in the interim. All people (even those who do not have children) pay into taxes used for funding Public lands (including the Public Schools)... If policy is adopted to allow organizations such as the United Way, American Cancer Society, and the like; to use the land and buildings... Under consistent rulings, courts will rule in favour of Churches as well to use the land. It's an all-or-nothing principle. (Such almost happened in MArion Massachusetts... except the School system settled out of court over the issue...) You can't have your cake and eat it too... Once you have classified a school as "Public Forum"; your entitlement over issue of use by a religious organization is moot in the eyes of the courts (as indeed it should be)... Off hours use of public lands for religious, or indeed any other form of "public forum" has never been construed to violate the establishment clause.

Can it refuse access to the Nazi party or the Church of Satan, etc.? Also, for the record I have no problem with the school doing this if they charge for the facilities, but to give space away for free is to actually give money/resources to these organizations which is not what the school receives money for.

Where in the constitution does it guarantee that I won't have to build schools or roads? I can tell specifically where it guarantees that I won't be forced by the government to support religion. Your analogy doesn't hold. The main difference being that my belief is already upheld in the current wording of the constitution, amendments 1 and 14.

Actually, that last part is incorrect. You can't decide "what" only "if". "If" you decide to open up schools as a "Public Forum" to any community organization; you've lost all footing to make decisions towards WHAT community organizations (even if they are religious ones). If a school is not used as "Public Forum" church use of the premises violates part 1 of the first clause.... If it is, DENIAL of use, is a violation of Part 2 of the first clause.

Public Forum (lands and facilities opened for public use) no longer fall in violation of the establishment clause, since they are open to use by any requesting community group.

Your decision only extends so far as "IF" you want the schools opened (off hours) as a public forum... Not as far as WHAT community groups you want in there. Public Forum falls under part 2 of clause 1; clause 2 in its entirety; and clause 3. Making decisions regardant to use (when open as Public Forums) in denial of certain religious groups is tantamount to a violation of Clause 1 part 1; since you are using the "government" to "respect" an "establishment of religion".

In operation usage, by administration, would violate Clause 1 part 1. So Ph33e's analogy, is incorrect; to some degree.

Can it refuse access to the Nazi party or the Church of Satan, etc.? Also, for the record I have no problem with the school doing this if they charge for the facilities, but to give space away for free is to actually give money/resources to these organizations which is not what the school receives money for.

The system can charge, or not charge rent for facilities (however, it must be consistent; if it charges use to a religious group; it most do the same for a non-religious one)... If it charges rent to "New Haven Baptist Church" for use of the school building on sundays.... then it must charge the "American Cancer Society's" use on saturdays. Can it "refuse access"? Yes, but not based upon religious grounds, or ideology (if considered a Public Forum)...

The one price of freedom, is that everyone else has the same freedoms you do.

Perhaps I could just repost what Tekania said? But no, I'll try to imagine why you are so adamant...


You've been influenced, at a slow pace to be sure, by endless years of education and “freedom of (from) religion” indoctrination. You've come to think of 'freedom of thought' as your ultimate aspiration and the inevitable conclusion of society itself. Perhaps you never attended a religious institution for any period of time, perhaps you were forced to attend for years and you despised it with a deep and well reason hatred, but either way, you've come to the conclusion that religious ideas and practices are backwards and or a hindrance to modern man and modern societies ability to get to your imagined ideal. But you've become overly judgmental and in this regard, a the truth is that you may have in fact become closed minded to this subject matter, bigoted and stereotyping religious activity as something that should be discouraged…

Step back, reassess, then post a reply of how incredibly naïve I am and I don’t know you etc., etc., etc., and who am I to say, and you aren’t prejudiced against religious people and organized religion at all, even though deep down you think the fundemamental evangelical Christian voters are the bane of this country and planet, perhaps now you won’t say it out loud?

Ha, you make sadly inaccurate assumption. Freedom of religion means I get to decide who I support. Not you. Not the majority. Not which religious organization asks for it. ME. I am not judgemental of religion in general. I am judgemental of people like you who want special treatment. You have made this no secret. You pretend like you're seeking freedom and equality, but you're actually seeking freedom and equality for people just like you. Unlike you, I know that religious activity is more free and more apt to continue unabated without government interference, just as many of our forefathers thought. The seperation is particularly to protect religion. When government and religion mix it has ALWAYS ended up bastardizing the religion and the government (Afghanistan, England, The Catholic Church, shall I go on?). I believe strongly that RELIGION should be PROTECTED from the government intervention disguised as support. I have attended no church that could survive without practicing in schools and government buildings or putting up symbols on government property and I think I never shall.

And I think fundamental evangalist Christians are the bane of Christianity and should learn to read the Bible a little better. Jesus Christ was very clear that he wanted government to stay out of religion and vice versa. Jesus said the only government that should ever be intertwined with the worship of God would be the one he establishes upon his return. Unless you believe GWB really is God then you should be as adamant as me that the government has no business intermixing itself in religion.

Now, would you like to rethink what you said as it makes you appear to be more ignorant and close-minded than many of your previous arguments? Is it just impossible for you to believe that my disagreement lies not in bias and hatred but in the fact that you're quite simply wrong according to the Bible AND the US Constitution?

Perhaps I could just repost what Tekania said? But no, I'll try to imagine why you are so adamant...


You've been influenced, at a slow pace to be sure, by endless years of education and “freedom of (from) religion” indoctrination. You've come to think of 'freedom of thought' as your ultimate aspiration and the inevitable conclusion of society itself. Perhaps you never attended a religious institution for any period of time, perhaps you were forced to attend for years and you despised it with a deep and well reason hatred, but either way, you've come to the conclusion that religious ideas and practices are backwards and or a hindrance to modern man and modern societies ability to get to your imagined ideal. But you've become overly judgmental and in this regard, a the truth is that you may have in fact become closed minded to this subject matter, bigoted and stereotyping religious activity as something that should be discouraged…

Step back, reassess, then post a reply of how incredibly naïve I am and I don’t know you etc., etc., etc., and who am I to say, and you aren’t prejudiced against religious people and organized religion at all, even though deep down you think the fundemamental evangelical Christian voters are the bane of this country and planet, perhaps now you won’t say it out loud?

"freedom of thought" and "freedom of religion" are interconnected. To hold one consistently, you must hold the other. If you deny one, you deny the other.

The general problem with most Americans, is they want their cake, and they want to eat it too.... They want their freedoms for themselves, and other "like" them; but wish to deny those same freedoms to others.

I have no respect for those types, personally.... You either support freedom for everyone; or freedom for no-one (including yourself)... There is no "middle ground".

The system can charge, or not charge rent for facilities (however, it must be consistent; if it charges use to a religious group; it most do the same for a non-religious one)... If it charges rent to "New Haven Baptist Church" for use of the school building on sundays.... then it must charge the "American Cancer Society's" use on saturdays. Can it "refuse access"? Yes, but not based upon religious grounds, or ideology (if considered a Public Forum)...

The one price of freedom, is that everyone else has the same freedoms you do.

I agree that they should charge everyone. I said earlier that I would equally have a problem with the Green Party, the Catholic Church or the Nazi party using the House of Representatives during off-hours.

"freedom of thought" and "freedom of religion" are interconnected. To hold one consistently, you must hold the other. If you deny one, you deny the other.

The general problem with most Americans, is they want their cake, and they want to eat it too.... They want their freedoms for themselves, and other "like" them; but wish to deny those same freedoms to others.

I have no respect for those types, personally.... You either support freedom for everyone; or freedom for no-one (including yourself)... There is no "middle ground".

I agree with that. This is quite simply why I am so adamant about the seperation of Church and State. I think intermixing surpressing freedom of thought/freedom of religion.

Jocabia, when I get I chance, I will come back and straighten this out further, but:

Tekania is right that if something is declared a public forum, then you must guarantee equal access to all groups. (There are neutral criteria you can apply, but you cannot discriminate on bases that discriminate either for or against religion or free speech.)

That does not mean that such facilities have to given over to churches free of charge. Only that if you allow some organizations to use a school building after hours for X amount of rent, then you cannot discriminate against other organizations using the school building on the same terms.

Not all public buildings are necessarily a public forum either.

Moreoever, Tekania's quote from the ACLU illustrates the argument I was making with Ph33rdom that he is lying about the activities of the ACLU. They support equal access -- non-discriminatory equal access.

Ph33rdom is pulling some bait-and-switches in his argument. First, he complained as if religious groups were denied equal access. It ignores that this is flatly untrue Then he makes statements supporting preferential, not equal access, to religion -- but will deny that anytime it is pointed out.

The "community' (i.e., government) cannot directly or indirectly support religion over non-religion or one religion over another religion. That means equal access to public forums for all groups. Ph33rdom pays lip-service to that principle, but only in advocating the breach thereof.

I agree that they should charge everyone. I said earlier that I would equally have a problem with the Green Party, the Catholic Church or the Nazi party using the House of Representatives during off-hours.

I don't have a problem with the Greens or Nazi's using facilities such as the House after hours (afterall, Dems and Reps do it all the time, we'd have to bar all access after-hours if we wanted to stop it).

I just want consistency....

(Libertarian BTW)...

I don't have a problem with the Greens or Nazi's using facilities such as the House after hours (afterall, Dems and Reps do it all the time, we'd have to bar all access after-hours if we wanted to stop it).

I just want consistency....

(Libertarian BTW)...

Well, actually I think it should be accessable to those who work there and only those who work there, much as my conference is available to me and my coworkers to use, but I could bring a bunch of my friends and have a party. I am consistent in that view.

(Also Libertarian)

The "community' (i.e., government) cannot directly or indirectly support religion over non-religion or one religion over another religion. That means equal access to public forums for all groups. Ph33rdom pays lip-service to that principle, but only in advocating the breach thereof.

I think, then, that the ACLU needs to look into the establishment of Muslim prayer rooms for children in public schools.

Group prayer is forbidden to other students on school property during school hours. But Muslims are excused five times a day to go to the special room.

I've watched the prayers several times. If that isn't group prayer, then I don't know what is.

I remember the Mormons got around their "religious instruction" on a daily basis by building a "seminary" as a separate building, technically on separate ground, paid for by the church, so that all Mormon children would be excused one hour a day to report to "seminary". A neat side step, but I don't have a problem with it.

I do have a problem with state sponsored favoritism of one religion in the name of "if we appease them, then maybe they won't grow up to be terrorists" and on the flip side, "we should discourage displays of Christianity, because they might find that offensive".

Perhaps I could just repost what Tekania said? But no, I'll try to imagine why you are so adamant...

With a quote from the "evil" ACLU that you claim is against exactly what Tekania quoted them as supporting! :rolleyes:


You've been influenced, at a slow pace to be sure, by endless years of education and “freedom of (from) religion” indoctrination. You've come to think of 'freedom of thought' as your ultimate aspiration and the inevitable conclusion of society itself. Perhaps you never attended a religious institution for any period of time, perhaps you were forced to attend for years and you despised it with a deep and well reason hatred, but either way, you've come to the conclusion that religious ideas and practices are backwards and or a hindrance to modern man and modern societies ability to get to your imagined ideal. But you've become overly judgmental and in this regard, a the truth is that you may have in fact become closed minded to this subject matter, bigoted and stereotyping religious activity as something that should be discouraged…

Step back, reassess, then post a reply of how incredibly naïve I am and I don’t know you etc., etc., etc., and who am I to say, and you aren’t prejudiced against religious people and organized religion at all, even though deep down you think the fundemamental evangelical Christian voters are the bane of this country and planet, perhaps now you won’t say it out loud?

Back to ad hominem attacks.

You've been proven misinformed, ignorant, and/or just plain wrong on many occasions in this thread.

Your primary examples of how religion is supposed being driven from public by the ACLU have been proven false.

If your personal attacks on Jocabia were not so contemptible, they would be laughable -- both for their inaccuracy and their irony.

Your scorn for "freedom of thought" is most telling. First, for someone that claims to be looking to the intent of the Founders, you have far missed the mark. Freedom of conscience was considered foremost among the liberties they were seeking to protect. Second, "freedom of thought" is our most precious liberty. That you would declare a hatred for it says all that needs to be said about where your views disconnect from those of the US Constitution or a free society.

Actually, that last part is incorrect. You can't decide "what" only "if". "If" you decide to open up schools as a "Public Forum" to any community organization; you've lost all footing to make decisions towards WHAT community organizations (even if they are religious ones). If a school is not used as "Public Forum" church use of the premises violates part 1 of the first clause.... If it is, DENIAL of use, is a violation of Part 2 of the first clause.

Public Forum (lands and facilities opened for public use) no longer fall in violation of the establishment clause, since they are open to use by any requesting community group.

Your decision only extends so far as "IF" you want the schools opened (off hours) as a public forum... Not as far as WHAT community groups you want in there. Public Forum falls under part 2 of clause 1; clause 2 in its entirety; and clause 3. Making decisions regardant to use (when open as Public Forums) in denial of certain religious groups is tantamount to a violation of Clause 1 part 1; since you are using the "government" to "respect" an "establishment of religion".

In operation usage, by administration, would violate Clause 1 part 1. So Ph33e's analogy, is incorrect; to some degree.

This is why I agree with charging for the use of these facilities. By what and if I mean that my dollar should never go to any of these organizations, unless I take it out of my pocket and give it directly to them. I don't care if it's the Red Cross (which I donate time and money to), some specific church, the organization for the celebration of blondes, whatever. I don't care what it's for, the government should not be allowed to force me to support these organizations.

Example:
My community where I own a house and give money to the local schools opens the school in my town as a public forum, but oops we have a two-year backlog and it's take up on Saturday until nine for sporting events, Saturday and Wednesday night for Catholic Services, Sunday for Catholic Services, Sunday afternoon and evening and Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday evening for various forms of AA/NA/OA, etc. Sorry, no soup for you. You are PERMITTED to use the facilities free of charge, except it's book for as long as we have a log.

With a quote from the "evil" ACLU that you claim is against exactly what Tekania quoted them as supporting! :rolleyes:




Back to ad hominem attacks.

You've been proven misinformed, ignorant, and/or just plain wrong on many occasions in this thread.

Your primary examples of how religion is supposed being driven from public by the ACLU have been proven false.

If your personal attacks on Jocabia were not so contemptible, they would be laughable -- both for their inaccuracy and their irony.

Your scorn for "freedom of thought" is most telling. First, for someone that claims to be looking to the intent of the Founders, you have far missed the mark. Freedom of conscience was considered foremost among the liberties they were seeking to protect. Second, "freedom of thought" is our most precious liberty. That you would declare a hatred for it says all that needs to be said about where your views disconnect from those of the US Constitution or a free society.

You're wrong. They are laughable, because, quite simply, I giggled at them. Considering some of the things you and I have argued about you should find them amusing as well.

Right on! All non-Christians are the enemy! Let's show our Christian values by crushing any and all questioning of Christianity. Death to all who masturbate or watch Eva! Death to all atheists!

And I think fundamental evangalist Christians are the bane of Christianity and should learn to read the Bible a little better. Jesus Christ was very clear that he wanted government to stay out of religion and vice versa. Jesus said the only government that should ever be intertwined with the worship of God would be the one he establishes upon his return. Unless you believe GWB really is God then you should be as adamant as me that the government has no business intermixing itself in religion.



I guess it didn't work, you said it anyway. :p And 'I'm' the irrational one? :D

With a quote from the "evil" ACLU that you claim is against exactly what Tekania quoted them as supporting! :rolleyes: I never said they were evil, I said they have an agenda and that they are a political organization... Interesting how you are guilty of things you accuse me of isn't it?


Back to ad hominem attacks. Yeah, that.


If your personal attacks on Jocabia were not so contemptible, they would be laughable -- both for their inaccuracy and their irony. I recall zero personal attacks at all, nice distraction from the topic though, maybe someone will beleive you.


Your scorn for "freedom of thought" is most telling. First, for someone that claims to be looking to the intent of the Founders, you have far missed the mark. Freedom of conscience was considered foremost among the liberties they were seeking to protect. Second, "freedom of thought" is our most precious liberty. That you would declare a hatred for it says all that needs to be said about where your views disconnect from those of the US Constitution or a free society.

When did I scorn freedom of thought? My mentioning of it does not scorn it, my referral to it did not scorn it at all, I only pointed out that it as an objective has caused him perhaps to become the very thing he hates. Perhaps you read it that way is just because you are angry and your blood is boiling and you've become irrational? Perhaps the real strawman here is the giant evil thing that you keep accusing me of when I have done not even half of what you say, and the stuff I have said you've misrepresented...

I guess it didn't work, you said it anyway. :p And 'I'm' the irrational one? :D

I'm irrational because I disagree with fundamentalists who behave contrary to the teachings and wishes of Jesus Christ? Interesting analysis. Unless you'd like to show how when Jesus said "turn the other cheek" he really meant "blow shit up" and when he said, "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...." he really meant "stand up and pray for all to see and then ask for money". The teachings of Jesus are clear and if to suggest that those who claim to be his followers should follow his teachings is irrational then I am so happy to be irrational.

I'm Christian and I haven't blown anything up unless I was told it was permissible when I was in the Army.

I don't believe the ACLU is evil, or out to get religion. I just think they pick and choose their battles - and the picks aren't always as fair as one might want.

A good example is the current prayer issue here in my county. Fine, no organized prayer in school - I agree with that, because we don't want to oppress those who might not share our religion, or who may be atheists. Wouldn't want anyone to feel left out, either.

So that explains why the school districts around here have opened exclusive Muslim prayer rooms. Five times a day, they get to pray - in groups.

See any Christian prayer rooms during school hours? Buddhist prayer groups? Atheist rally groups (other than recess)?

Nope.

See the ACLU come steaming down the street to see what's going on, and make a big fuss in the courts and in the media?

Nope.

I recall zero personal attacks at all, nice distraction from the topic though, maybe someone will beleive you.

You suggested that I hate religion and am intolerant of it, I'd say that is both personal and an attack. You make assumptions about my upbringing and my personal beliefs, again personal and an attack. All of those were absolutely false. My beliefs about religion are based on... see if you can follow this... my personal relationship with God and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I know that's hard for you to believe seeing as you believe it is acceptable to call yourself a Christian and not support the teachings of Christ. Basically, you said, "you don't agree with me so I declare that your statements are based on bias against and hatred for religion." Too bad your statements don't hold up against reality. Reality. I know you've heard of it. How about we play there for a while?

Our Country was founded by Conservative Christians who lived simple lives. Their family was important to them, including their heterosexual marriages. They couldn't perform adultry, another present problem. Their lives were surrounded by their faith, the Christian Church. They lived hard, but happy lives. No doubt, they are now forever happy with their Father in Heaven. Our country, the good old U.S.A. is the greatest country on the face of the planet. This is because of our conservative laws. The liberals are trying to change our lifestyles, but are obviously the minority. I am proud of the 10 Commandments, and how they are displayed in the Capital of our Nation. It goes to show that Jesus does ROCK!!!!

Justin Rohloff

Our Country was founded by Conservative Christians who lived simple lives.[/QUOTE]
False. You should really go back and re-read the thread.

Their family was important to them, including their heterosexual marriages. They couldn't perform adultry, another present problem.

I guess that explains why Thomas Jefferson was screwing the slave girls on the side.

Their lives were surrounded by their faith, the Christian Church.
They weren't all Christians.
They lived hard, but happy lives.
Not all happy.
No doubt, they are now forever happy with their Father in Heaven.
Well, I for one, would doubt that men like Jim Bowie are in heaven.
Our country, the good old U.S.A. is the greatest country on the face of the planet. This is because of our conservative laws.

False.
The liberals are trying to change our lifestyles, but are obviously the minority. I am proud of the 10 Commandments, and how they are displayed in the Capital of our Nation. It goes to show that Jesus does ROCK!!!!
Justin Rohloff

And how does it follow that because the 10 Commandments are displayed somewhere, that Jesus rocks?

You know, I talk to Jesus every day, and He never says anything about you.

I guess that explains why Thomas Jefferson was screwing the slave girls on the side. Thomas Jefferson wasn't a Christian...


As to the other stuff, I don't have to agree with the guy to defend his right to say it.

I'm irrational because I disagree with fundamentalists who behave contrary to the teachings and wishes of Jesus Christ? Interesting analysis. Unless you'd like to show how when Jesus said "turn the other cheek" he really meant "blow shit up" and when he said, "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...." he really meant "stand up and pray for all to see and then ask for money". The teachings of Jesus are clear and if to suggest that those who claim to be his followers should follow his teachings is irrational then I am so happy to be irrational.
…..
You suggested that I hate religion and am intolerant of it, I'd say that is both personal and an attack. You make assumptions about my upbringing and my personal beliefs, again personal and an attack. All of those were absolutely false. My beliefs about religion are based on... see if you can follow this... my personal relationship with God and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I know that's hard for you to believe seeing as you believe it is acceptable to call yourself a Christian and not support the teachings of Christ. Basically, you said, "you don't agree with me so I declare that your statements are based on bias against and hatred for religion." Too bad your statements don't hold up against reality. Reality. I know you've heard of it. How about we play there for a while?


Actually, it wasn’t a personal attack at all. I merely pointed out what you are doing. I was suggesting that you're irrational because you are stereotying and judging all evangelical Christians as not really being followers of Jesus like you are. You're irrational because you're making the claim that if other people don't practice their religion in the same way that you practice it that somehow this makes you and your ideas superior to theirs. I always thought of that kind of thinking as prejudice myself. What do you call it in your world?

I'm Christian and I haven't blown anything up unless I was told it was permissible when I was in the Army.

I don't believe the ACLU is evil, or out to get religion. I just think they pick and choose their battles - and the picks aren't always as fair as one might want.

A good example is the current prayer issue here in my county. Fine, no organized prayer in school - I agree with that, because we don't want to oppress those who might not share our religion, or who may be atheists. Wouldn't want anyone to feel left out, either.

So that explains why the school districts around here have opened exclusive Muslim prayer rooms. Five times a day, they get to pray - in groups.

See any Christian prayer rooms during school hours? Buddhist prayer groups? Atheist rally groups (other than recess)?

Nope.

See the ACLU come steaming down the street to see what's going on, and make a big fuss in the courts and in the media?

Nope.

Actually with this, I'm entirely sympathetic with you. I'm not about to defend the ACLU's choice of battles to fight... However, I come to a different conclusion.

I think the Muslims should be allowed their prayer room. If there is a community of Muslims (even if just one child) sending someone to the school, the school can make reasonable accommodations for them. But, it shouldn't stop with the Muslims, the same would hold true for Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhist as the case may be. Religion, whether we like it or not, is a part of America and being accepting of other peoples right to practice their religions freely is paramount. In my mind it's the attempt to 'hide' all religious practice, to push it into the closet, to not sanction it in the public realm is the current mistake that some people are trying to endorse and promote.

Actually with this, I'm entirely sympathetic with you. I'm not about to defend the ACLU's choice of battles to fight... However, I come to a different conclusion.

I think the Muslims should be allowed their prayer room. If there is a community of Muslims (even if just one child) sending someone to the school, the school can make reasonable accommodations for them. But, it shouldn't stop with the Muslims, the same would hold true for Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhist as the case may be. Religion, whether we like it or not, is a part of America and being accepting of other peoples right to practice their religions freely is paramount. In my mind it's the attempt to 'hide' all religious practice, to push it into the closet, to pretend we don't endorse it, is the current mistake that some people are trying to endorse and promote.


I don't care if they remove all religion from public government buildings.

I don't care if they allow all religion in public government buildings.

I just wish they would be consistent.

The situation I describe has little to do with the ACLU, and more to do with people fearful of making Muslims angry. Neat stereotype that - if we piss them off, they'll fly airliners into our houses. So let's give them a prayer room and get rid of the Christmas tree.

See, the difference between having a Muslim prayer room and a Christian one is that the Muslims absolutely MUST have it. Christians have no "set" time for prayer. They can do it any time. But Muslims must do it at certain times, facing a certain way, and moving a certain way, making it inconvienent to do it class.