User Panel
Posted: 6/28/2002 12:03:29 PM EDT
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. |
|
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.... The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." View Quote 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. [;)] |
|
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." View Quote 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. |
|
ARLady has it right.
[b]The metaphor, `Separation of Church and State', was extracted, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in reply to a letter from them expressing concern that the Federal Government might intrude in religious matters by favoring one denomination over another. Jefferson's reply was that the First Amendment would preclude such intrusion. The Court, in its use of Separation of Church and State, has given to this phrase a meaning never intended by its author; it took it out of context and inverted its meaning and intent. The complete text of Jefferson's letter is found in Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. ---Ron Paul R-TX[/b] Jefferson was not the author of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Therefor he should not be cited in rulings on the 1st Amendment. Plus, when he wrote it was after the Constitution had been adopted. |
|
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992. View Quote |
|
Sweep, believe it or not, we just saw a film in church last sunday talking about the very same thing. You hit the nail right on the head. It was about how the founding fathers were Christians and wanted the laws to reflect this. One group spent years studying quotes the founders used, and 94% were directly linked to the Bible. If I remember correctly, the Danbury Baptists were afraid that the government was getting ready to make THEIR denomination the official denomination of the U.S. and used Thomas Jefferson's quote to get the government to back off. I think that it wasn't until around 1962 that the Supreme Court first took the quote "separation of church and state" and used it out of its original context context. All the First Amendment means is that the government shall not make one denomination official over all others. It does not mean that religion must be kept separate from government.
|
|
There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the `wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson. . . . But the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history. . . . It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. . . . Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor. ---Justice William Rehnquist 1984 View Quote |
|
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.... |
|
M4Madness,
Thanks, but the credit belongs to Congressman Ron Paul R-TX. I took it from a bill he has introduced. |
|
Quoted: 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.... View Quote 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] |
|
Quoted: 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? View Quote |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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? |
|
Quoted: ...when in reality their only goal is to shove atheism down everyone's throat. View Quote Newdow to Sean Hannity: "When the atheist take over this country they'll be protecting you." |
|
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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote You have freedom of religion only if it doesn't violate someone elses rights or endager them. Killing chickens and goats in a room of a school would violate an ordinance is just about every city/county in the U.S. Heck, it's against the law to kill livestock in a residential neighborhood. It's a health issue. |
|
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. |
|
Quoted: If you let one teacher give a Christian quote then you have to let the Catholic teacher next door have a Catholic quote. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: ...but you would still have to let them practice their thing. sorry. View Quote I'd have no problem with that. |
|
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 |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If you let one teacher give a Christian quote then you have to let the Catholic teacher next door have a Catholic quote. View Quote AFAIK, Catholics are Christians. You mean Protestants, right? View Quote I have yet to see an organized religion that isnt legalistic and in it for the money. |
|
Here is the "lowdown" on the true interpretation of "Separation Of Church And State":
[url]http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9[/url] |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.