i'm so sick of reading articles in the newspaper and online and seeing crap on the cable news show and networks that this library won't allow a man to use the community room for religious purposes or a school won't let a bible study group use a room after school hours.

here's the deal:  the issue of separation of church and state does NOT mean that the government (any level) cannot be connected with religious activities.  it means only that it cannot favor one religion over another in those activities.

school vouchers are perfectly legal...as long as all private/religious schools are allowed in the program.  can't have just catholics and presbyterian schools.

prayer in school is fine too.  just give everybody a moment of silence to say their own prayer to their own god.

EXACTLY.

Actually ARLAdy, excuse me, I have to disagree with you here. I dont know any source of a "favor rule". Your title suggests fact, your post feelings.

The actual cite, and rule of law is....




This comes from the State sponsored Church of England, IIRC. The key words here are [b]establishment & free exercise[/b].

I think she hit the nail on the head.  Allowing use of the facilities equally neither endorses, nor discourages any particular religion.  It seem to me that this is the intent of the amendment.  I think [b]equal access[/b] is the key here.

Now if they were going to sacrifice goats on school or library property as part of their religion, that might be a different issue. [;)]

CavVet, I'm gonna have to go with ARLady with this one.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"= There can be no state sponsored religion, like your example of the C of E

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."= they cannot prevent anyone from exercising there religion [b]in any way[/b]. I.E. when the Fed Gov made it illegal for a kid to pray in school for a friend about to go into surgury, etc. they just violated the second part of the text in question.

Well, one key phrase I didnt highlight was [b]"Congress shall make no laws"[/b]. Does this allow the state of give money to church's?

While I am in no means attempting to discount the founders reliance on a higher power (Note- they mention "Creator", not God in their writings), I see nothing that indicates they want any government relaince, nor any government ties to religion.

Being a very spiritual person, I want the same from the government I get from my Bible. Render unto Caesar that which is his, and vice versa. I dont want a religious government, nor a government religion.

Want to have a meeting? Get a room....If you can go talk, they can fry a goat. You all have the freedom to get a room, dont rely, like the left, on the government teat to supply your needs. Start your own church, build your own meeting room, and get your own bar-b-que grill....

Amen to that.

By their logic Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, and Halloween would have to be banned from public school as all have ties to religion.

Christmas=supposedly Christ's birthday
Thanksgiving=prayer to God from the settlers for food and bounty-not to Native Americans.
Halloween=Festival of Sam Hain (sp?), Celtic holiday for the dead spirits.
Easter=Originally for Christ's Ressurrection?


All of these former religious holidays have been permanetly turned into Secular holidays and to benefit the mass sale of teeth-rotting sweets.


Lib-who just ate a Twix

Let's see...

I think we can read the text of the "exclusion" clause of the First Amendment (i.e. - [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[/i]) in one of two ways:

1) If we read the word "respecting" as meaning "holding in regard or otherwise giving credence to", and the word "establishment" as a [b]noun[/b] (i.e. - a [b]thing[/b] such as "the establishment that is religion"), then the phrase would be interpreted as follows:

"Congress shall make no law that gives credence to a religion".

In such a case, the exclusion clause could be strictly read as a true "separation of church ad state".

However,

2) If we read the word "respecting" to mean "regarding", and the word "establishment" as "setting up", then the clause would be interpreted as follows:

"Congress shall make no law regarding the setting up of religion"

Which means, plainly, that Congress shall not establish a [b]national[/b] religion. (i.e. - Freedom [b]of[/b] religion, but not [b]from[/b] religion".

To be frank, I find the wording of the First Amendment to be far more convoluted than the Second, and yet look how they take the First as gospel and shred the Second!

I'm with ARLady on this one. I firmly believe the Founders meant option #2 above. I don't have the slightest doubt in my mind.

OK, I'll get off the soapbox now. Class dismissed.

[soapbox]

Good observation! NONE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS MEANT TO APPLY TO THE STATES. However, the SCOTUS has decided that the 14th amendment "incorporates" parts of the BOR to apply to the states. The founding fathers, however, never meant this to be the case.

School vouchers are more likely to allow formation of of more private schools that have 'no' religious affiliation.

Of course the truth is of little value to the Dimocrats.

Notice that Congress shall make no law.  Individual states were not and are not prohibited constitutionally from sponsoring religion.  Indeed most did is some way or another in the early days.  Planerench out.

It's such BS. You have that jerk "Rev." Barry W. Lynn of AU going around preaching his atheist dogma to the point where you just want to puke. Those fvcknuts call themselves "Americans United for Separation of Church and State", when in reality their only goal is to shove atheism down everyone's throat.

In my mind, their platform is 100% bullshit. They automatically assume people will use vouchers to attend religious schools, when in fact, I'm sure many people just want to send their kids to good schools, period. Yet the fact that even some of that money, our money, may make its way into religious schools just burns their asses.

And their reasoning is so transparent: they want control of the schools.

I say screw them. Hell, I don't give a crap where people send their kids as long as they get a good education in the process. If that education includes a little religion, so what?

Its the equal access thing that they back away from.

I agree that people should be able to use facilities, BUT , if you let Christians use a room on Wednesday night...then you will have to let the 666club sacrifice live chickens and goats on your nice tile floors.

Hey, its equal access.  Rather than exclude certain groups, they have to bar everyone.

If you let one teacher give a Christian quote then you have to let the Catholic teacher next door have a Catholic quote.  AND then you have to let the Islamic one down the hall have their say and on and on.  If you display a HOLY BIBLE. Then you also have to display the satanic verses, the Koran and whatever else some wacko calls religious texts.

This is what the seperation is about.  The state simply and morally cannot let one in and not the other.

yeah I know,

I was a little extreme about the chickens and goats, but you would still have to let them practice their thing.

sorry.

AFAIK, Catholics are Christians. You mean Protestants, right?

The founding fathers of our country were religious men, but, IMO they attempted to create a nation where religion and government were separate. Not to be anti-religion, but the spanish inquisition and the English persecution of catholics were the results of a government too intertwined with religion. By separating church and state, the hoped to allow people to worship freely, and prevent any single group from taking control of the government and persecuting others. Keep in mind that one of the reasons our nation was populated is because of a migration of persecuted people.

On another matter. Any student who wishes to may pray in school. They arent allowed to do things like using a PA system for it. And no school official is supposed to lead a prayer in class. But praying is fine, if you're quiet about it.

What is most hypocritical about this whole subject and those who claim that there cannot even be words in or on government documents that have a religious connotation while the government restricts religions regularly and none of the atheists seem to mind.

Churches are regulated as tax exempt entities, and have to meet established criteria simply to have the government recognize them as a church.

Churches cannot practice politics from the pulpit and must fill out and file tax paperwork proving that they are continuing to function in the manner that the government deems that a church should behave to remain a church.

I am sure that there are thousands of words written into laws and regulations concerning churches.

By my reading, the government has no right to regulate churches and their activitues in any way.

BTW, I consider myself a Christian and I do not care if they take God off of the money and elsewhere. What difference would that make to my beliefs and practice of my religion anyway?

Get the damn  government out altogether, I say.

Ray
Ray

my first response is why should a student have to be quiet about his/her prayer.  if he wanted to walk down the hallway praying aloud, so what?

my second response is that you either missed the point of my post or you're simply iterating it.

government is not supposed to be involved in religious matters.  period.  this would include forbidding it in places.  it would include passing laws about it, either to place one above all or to belittle and demonize (ooh, bad word, sorry).

there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.  government deals with civil and legal matters pertinent to keeping a civil society and protecting the liberties of its citizens and church(es) deal with the salvation.  governments don't intrude in church business and churches don't attempt to become chess pieces in the politics of government.

there is no overlap.

that being said, there are a lot of people who think that separation means exclusion of religion.  that is what i'm talking about.

I have yet to see an organized religion that isnt legalistic and in it for the money.