Posted: 4/28/2004 7:47:13 AM EDT
|
Seperation of Church and State seems to be a pretty hot topic today, so let's look at what the constitution actually says: "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" Breakdown: Congress - The federal legislature comprised of elected representitives from each state. Include the House of Representitives, and the Senate. shall make no law - fordbids the passage of a law, also affirms that the creation of laws is vested with the Congress, NOT the Supremem Court, and NOT the President. respecting an establishment of religion - here in lies the key "an ESTABLISHMENT". This ammendment does not forbid respecting religion/religions or no religion, it forbids respecting "AN ESTABLISHMENT" of religion. My Summarry - The purpose of this ammendment is to prevent the congress from giving any governmental power to a specific religious organization, such as the Anglican church, the Catholic church, or say the Southern Baptist Convention. The first ammendment does NOT separate the principals, teachings, beleifs from use, display or reference in governmental affairs. It does not pertain to the President, it does not pertain to the Alabama State Court system (or state supreme court house), it does not pertain to state run educational systems, IT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE BIBLE, QURAN, TORRAH OR 10 COMMANDMENTS, or their display, reference or use by any private individual acting as a public official or public entity. |
|
Actually, he didn't start any religion. He fought against the religous establishment of his time. The only 2 rules he imposed were "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself". I see nothing unconstitutional with honoring him as a nation! |
|
I think it has come down to interpretation of what the word "establishment" means - which is why there's such a big debate over what appears to be trivial stuff like prayer in public schools. Think about this hypothetical case. Imagine a public school - which is run by the government and paid for with tax dollars. Now imagine that every student in that school is a Christian, except for one, who is Hindu. Now if that school has a Christian prayer before lunch every day - then it is reasonable to expect that the Hindu student would feel immense pressure to conform to that - and since it is a government-sponsored school, might even feel that the government was sending the message that Chritainity, not Hinduism was "correct" somehow. It's easy for us to say "Ah - but it's voluntary" and stuff like that - but for an eight year-old kid, it could still be a tough situation, and could cause such a kid to feel like his Hindu faith is not as "appropriate" or "correct" Now that's fine if it's a Hindu kid who lives in a Christian neighborhood, and all the Christian kids mock his silly Hindu gods - that's fine - because his parents CHOOSE to move to that neighborhood. But, when it's a government school - and the government mandates primary education - then it becomes more tricky because the lunch prayer can certainly appear to be a government support of Christianity OVER Hinduism. Anyhoo - that's probably how the ACLU would describe it. (I don't KNOW, I just pulled this out of my ass, but I imagine the logic is probabyl something liek that). |
If the Congress added Jesus Day to the United States Code, that would be violation of the First Ammendment. The first ammendment does not prohibit the President of the United States from doing anything. |
or the governor of Texas, although the courts ha ve interpreted "Congress" to mean "Anyone getting a government paycheck" 
|
|
I have a simple question.... What is a holiday? We have all these holidays in this country, to include holidays celebrating individuals such as MLK. Now, MLK is not a religious figure (although he is named after one), but it is still a Holiday. Does that mean that congress passed a law that we should take a day to worship him? Oh yeah, the origin of the word Holiday is Holy Day. That is also the meaning of it. Think about it some time Also, Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion or keeps a religion from being established or practiced. We also have labor laws that say wage employees are to be paid time and a half on sundays. If they can make no law at all regarding religion, then why is the "official day of rest" as prescribed by the Christian church the day designated for time and a half? If I were an Adventist, I would be forced to work on my "day of rest for standard wage while the Christians got time and a half on theirs. What the first means is that the federal government can not establish a federal religion and can not keep you from practicing whatever religion that you want. It does not say that religion is not a part of the society and that the government shall have nothing to do with it. Remember what it says on your money? In God We Trust. The absolute banishment of all religious content by the government as advocated by the liberals is as Anti American as can be. This Nation was built by those who sought to be able to practice their religion free from oppression. Don't forget that we are "Endowed by our Creator" . If you don't recognize that, read your declaration of independence. Such people would not even consider banishment of religion as advocated by the liberals. |
My office doesn't observe most holidays that the goverment does, with that, anyone, including MLK, who lightens rush hour traffic for my commute into work in name of a holiday, is OK by me. I ain't gonna be praying to him, but I'll give a quick nod to the sky as I zoom down normally congested streets. :) |
|
I guess you disagree with the concept of incorporation, eh? Thus, only congress is also barred from messing with the press. I guess that means that local & state governments can ban & censor all the media outlets they want. Nice interpretation, next thing you know, you'll be saying that women have no RKBA, as they are not 'able bodied men'. Always remember that interpretation is a double edged sword. If you bend it to your advantage, don't be suprised when your political opponents successfully do the same... |
He Did Not Start Any,,he did not ask for a religion to be formed........ He was a Jew! a Heretic in the eyes of the head jews in charge! |
Neither did the pope, so would you cry a river if his directives were made law in America? |
Yes I would, I would also cry if Jesus' directives were made the law of the land. But that's not what we are talking about here. there is a big differance between recognizing someone and instill someones views . Sgtar15 |