'don't Impose Your Values' Argument Is Bigotry In Disguise

[theim]

My veiw:

The country is like 80% Chrisitian. There are going to be mentions of God around. Deal with it. If the dreadful horror of someone practicing a religion offends you because it's so "divisive", get therapy or move to Canada.

Total seperation of Church and State would be a disaster. Look how well we have done. I remember a while ago some kid raped an elderly woman, but hey, he used a condom!

Our public schools should be proud.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't have any problem with teachers leading the kids in prayer - as long as the majority of parents in the school district are fine with it. I think the majority should rule, don't you? Isn't that how Democracy works? In any case, saying a prayer is only the expression of religious beliefs, not the establishment of any religion.

I also believe that schools should not enforce any religion because that becomes the government "pushing" religion and crossing the line. Anybody who does not believe in God or does not wish to join any prayer should not be forced to do so. All a parent should have to do is send the principle a note to excuse his little Johhny-atheist-in-training.

Since the majority of parents in America want their children to grow up with Christian values it would probably help children a lot (not to mention our society) if they were to say a daily prayer in a public school. Our schools in the early days always had prayer and probably read the Bible as well. Crazy pioneers huh? Kids were much better behaved and grew up to be better citizens.

Of course, the major focus on religious teaching should be in church or in Sunday school or in private schools. But the simple acknowledgement of God with a short prayer or whatever should be part of any public school program. It helps to set the tone and provides a framework for good behavior as well.

Children should also be saying the Pledge of Allegiance everyday as well, not to mention read the Declaration of Independence, both of which have the horrifying word "God" in them. /sarcasm

If the Courts take God out of the schools and everything else, then I would say that the values of the godless are being imposed upon the majority of our citizens. This is wrong. The majority should rule as long as the minority is not having their rights taken away from them, which hasn't happened. I defy any minority to claim that their equal rights per the U.S. Constitution have been taken away.

 

[Merlin]

I beg to differ with Huclkebury.

"A separation of church and state most certainly exists both in the constitution and in the broader corpus of American law. The phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is often overlooked."

A separation of church and state absolutely does "NOT" exist in the Constitution of the United States or "ANY" law of the United States. Some nut judge decided that is what he/she wanted it to say and like all the power hungry judges, started making laws instead of interpreting them according to the Constitution.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

Bush is NOT going to implement a theocracy.

Yeah, and even if he WAS going to...SO WHAT???????

 

[5stringJeff]

Yeah, and even if he WAS going to...SO WHAT???????

Ummm... maybe that was meant in jest and I'm taking it wrong. But America was not founded as a theocracy; it was founded as a constitutional republic. So many of us - including this evangelical Christian - would have a big problem with that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah, and even if he WAS going to...SO WHAT???????

Really, enemy. The whole point of current events is that we're NOT the taliban.

 

[Huckleburry]

Ok let’s suppose that no separation of church and state exists. The majority of a given school district (or any political district) has the ability to dictate the amount of religion practiced in a given district. Now let’s suppose that a large number of Muslims immigrate to the United States, further suppose that these immigrants choose to live in a block (as immigrants often do). Now the majority of parents are Muslim and they fully endorse Muslim prayer in school. If little Johnny evangelical Christian chooses not to participate he is of course excused from praying with the rest of the class. The particular prayer they have selected advocates the extermination of Christians everywhere. According to your logic theim such teachings should be allowed because a majority of the parents voted/decided in favor of such an education. Now your hard earned dollars are being spent to deliver an education promoting the hatred of Christians. According to your logic you should sit quiet because that is what the majority wanted and under our system the majority rules.
While such an extreme example may seem obtuse our founders certainly considered such a problem. Hamilton referred to such action as the tyranny of the majority. According to his logic he argued that while the majority may be greater in number it does not necessarily mean their thinking is correct. The constitution and especially the bill of rights were established to protect the minority from the majority in areas which the founders believed to be fundamental to a healthy republic. Religion is one such area. According to the constitution public dollars are not to be spent advocating one religious ideal over another. This is not a conclusion drawn by liberal judges in the 60's rather the separation of church and state has long been recognized by liberal and conservative judges alike as a fundamental aspect of our society. The public practice of religion by public officers is a de facto establishment of religion. If you do not agree with this than change the constitution. Do not argue that no separation of church and state exists under the constitution when one clearly does. Moreover, before arguing against the separation of church and state consider a scenario in which you are the minority. Our founders certainly did and as a result they established certain protections for all citizens against governmental action.

 

[Avatar4321]

The particular prayer they have selected advocates the extermination of Christians everywhere. According to your logic theim such teachings should be allowed because a majority of the parents voted/decided in favor of such an education. Now your hard earned dollars are being spent to deliver an education promoting the hatred of Christians. According to your logic you should sit quiet because that is what the majority wanted and under our system the majority rules.

This is when your analogy falls apart. No Christian would advocate the extermination of muslims everywhere in a prayer, nor the extermination of any other religious group.

The local communities should be allowed to determine what goes on in local schools. This is also another good argument for vouchers.

 

[Huckleburry]

Well done. That is a great counter argument, however, do not forget the crusades. They essentially argued the eradication of Muslims everywhere. While I am in favor of states rights, I am also a believer in the separation of church and state. Also, extend my argument beyond school prayer and particular religious beliefs. I used the example of school prayer as a matter of convenience. If however one permits their imagination to wonder a bit it becomes clear that the separation of church and state is significantly more fundamental to our way of life than it initially appears.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well done. That is a great counter argument, however, do not forget the crusades. They essentially argued the eradication of Muslims everywhere. While I am in favor of states rights, I am also a believer in the separation of church and state. Also, extend my argument beyond school prayer and particular religious beliefs. I used the example of school prayer as a matter of convenience. If however one permits their imagination to wonder a bit it becomes clear that the separation of church and state is significantly more fundamental to our way of life than it initially appears.

Why is it you have to go back over 1000 years to find some incident of Christian agression? seriously though the Crusades werent fought to eradicate the Muslims. They were fought to repel them from Christian lands. You see what started the crusades was that the Muslim Caliphates sent Arab armies to conquor Christian lands. They destroyed the Byzantine Empire and Visigoth Rule in Spain. So Christians rallied together and with Papal support fought to retake the land that had already been stolen. Meanwhile Christian missionaries were being martyred trying to preach the Gospel in Muslim lands. You dont risk your lives to preach to people you want to kill. Atleast ive never met anyone who did. most people who want to kill people just kill them.

The whole problem with the separation of Church and State argument is it isnt Constitutional. You may want to claim it is all you want but the First amendment has two specific parts with regards to religion

1)Congress shall make no law establishing a State Church.
2)Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

As much as youd like to read more into it, Separation of Church and state as you are advocating does not exist in the Constitution. In fact the first amendment was written specifically to allow local governments have their own religious views.

The whole situation could be fixed easily with School vouchers. I wish the President would have pushed for it more during his first term.

 

[dilloduck]

Why is it you have to go back over 1000 years to find some incident of Christian agression? seriously though the Crusades werent fought to eradicate the Muslims. They were fought to repel them from Christian lands. You see what started the crusades was that the Muslim Caliphates sent Arab armies to conquor Christian lands. They destroyed the Byzantine Empire and Visigoth Rule in Spain. So Christians rallied together and with Papal support fought to retake the land that had already been stolen. Meanwhile Christian missionaries were being martyred trying to preach the Gospel in Muslim lands. You dont risk your lives to preach to people you want to kill. Atleast ive never met anyone who did. most people who want to kill people just kill them.

The whole problem with the separation of Church and State argument is it isnt Constitutional. You may want to claim it is all you want but the First amendment has two specific parts with regards to religion

1)Congress shall make no law establishing a State Church.
2)Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

As much as youd like to read more into it, Separation of Church and state as you are advocating does not exist in the Constitution. In fact the first amendment was written specifically to allow local governments have their own religious views.

The whole situation could be fixed easily with School vouchers. I wish the President would have pushed for it more during his first term.

And now we have judges making rulings that prohibit the free exercise of religion. There is absolutely no doubt that this is occurring. This end run around the constitution may have to be stopped by civil disobedience.

 

[ajwps]

You are not guaranteed a society free of all religious content. You have a right to practice your religion and not have one forced on you. The lefts' constant extension of this protection to somehow entail a right to institutionalized anti-christian zealotry is assinine.

Religion should be taught to our young children in their public schools. Prayers should be allowed so that children can understand the god of the teacher.

Recently two teachers of India extraction taught the second and fourth grades in a local public school. As is the right of relgious freedom in our public schools, these teachers had the majority Christian children praying to the god Vishnu and the monkey gods.

Remember the right to pray to the god of the teachers is guaranteed by the US Constitutional right to freedom from the government's intrusion into religion in our school systems.

The parents of the children found that they enjoyed their kids praying to the monkey gods because of their public elementary school diversity of religions.

 

[Mariner]

you don't have to go back 1000 years to find instances of Christian aggression. You can find them monthly in the Indo-American press, which features an unfortunate Hindu mistaken for a Muslim and beaten to a pulp by a nice American Christian.

Merlin, you seem to forget that the framers of the constitution intended laws to be made based on social and cultural changes which they knew they could not predict, and were wise enough not to try to control. They created three separate branches of gov't for a reason. The separation of church and state in its current form derives from Supreme Court cases in the 20th century when one type of Christian (Catholics) experienced discrimination by another (Protestants). If Christians are capable of disciminating against one another then they're certainly capable of discriminating against other faiths.

Mariner

 

[theim]

you don't have to go back 1000 years to find instances of Christian aggression. You can find them monthly in the Indo-American press, which features an unfortunate Hindu mistaken for a Muslim and beaten to a pulp by a nice American Christian.

Merlin, you seem to forget that the framers of the constitution intended laws to be made based on social and cultural changes which they knew they could not predict, and were wise enough not to try to control. They created three separate branches of gov't for a reason. The separation of church and state in its current form derives from Supreme Court cases in the 20th century when one type of Christian (Catholics) experienced discrimination by another (Protestants). If Christians are capable of disciminating against one another then they're certainly capable of discriminating against other faiths.

Mariner

Firstly, I am a Catholic, a practicing one, and I don't feel threatened or saddened at all by what Protestants did circa 50-100 years ago.

EVERYONE is capaable of discriminating against other faiths. Use this test:

When a Christian bombs an abortion clinic, see how many Christians support him and how many condemn him.

When a Muslim beheads an American, see how many Muslims support him and how many condemn him.

Seperation of Church and state was never intended in the Constitution and you perfectly well know it. Christianity has been a force more for good than evil in the world, you know this as well. I can blow up a Catholic school in the name of Atheism, but that doesn't mean Atheists are dangerous people who seek to kill believers.

So get over it. Chrisitanity will always be around, despite liberals' efforts to force it underground.

 

[MissileMan]

Hucleberry, I am certainly not suggesting teacher led prayer in schools, but certianly a moment of silence would be perfectly reasonable, to bar everything completley is the governemnt going the other way in obstructing religious expression. The constitution states the governemnt will make no laws establishing or obstructing any religion or the free and public expression of faith. What we have now are some in governement, and activists in the judicial branch of government going too far in carrying that to mean all public expression of faith as well, this was never intended by our founding fathers.

Why does this moment of silence have to take place in school? Why can't those who wish to offer a morning prayer do so before they go to school?

 

[Huckleburry]

Annie Garolds is a good family friend (she is an NPR reporter in Iraq) and to hear her tell it most Arabs want peace. They want to live happy and peaceful lives, they want to raise their children and see them enjoy happy and productive lives. Unfortunately their faith has been hijacked by people whose envision a very different world and see violence as a means to their end. I do not think that the majority of Muslims support the kind of violence we see on a regular basis. I do think that a sense of hopelessness persists in many Muslim countries and the people are desensitized to the quantity and quality of violence.

 

[Said1]

Why does this moment of silence have to take place in school? Why can't those who wish to offer a morning prayer do so before they go to school?

A moment of silence isn't always symbolic of prayer. Taking a moment of silence to refelect or remember is not necessarily a religious act.

 

[sagegirl]

Will someone please post on this board the place in the Constitution of The United States that says we have to have separation of church and states? The only words I can find about religion is as follows. "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." I can't find where Congress has made any kind of laws whether for or against religion, and if not, this clause gives the absolute right to pray, and even teach religion in schools if one so desires. Also, I'm glad we are living in a democracy, but how did the word "Democracy" come about in every day use? It's not in the Constitution either.

The US constitution was based on the constitutions from several of the colonies...Virginia, Mass, etc. all which had their own ideas and religious constituencies.....our constitution is really protection from any one of these religions or taxing us to support any such state religion and still allow us the right to a religion of our choice. The articles of confederation explain some of the thinking of the writers of the constitution, and while strong in language supporting morality and a belief in god as necessary for a strong foundation for a government, clearly also did not intend for any religion to be adopted by the government.

And actually I think we are a republic...."and to the republic for which it stands".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The US constitution was based on the constitutions from several of the colonies...Virginia, Mass, etc. all which had their own ideas and religious constituencies.....our constitution is really protection from any one of these religions or taxing us to support any such state religion and still allow us the right to a religion of our choice. The articles of confederation explain some of the thinking of the writers of the constitution, and while strong in language supporting morality and a belief in god as necessary for a strong foundation for a government, clearly also did not intend for any religion to be adopted by the government.

And actually I think we are a republic...."and to the republic for which it stands".

The short answer is nowhere.

 

[ajwps]

rtwngAvngr- The short answer is nowhere.

The following dissertation is really the cruz of this hotly debated subject.

What is the separation of church and state?:

That is a very good question - the separation of church and state is perhaps one of the most misunderstood, misrepresented and maligned concepts in today's political, legal and religious debates. Everyone has an opinion, but unfortunately, many of those opinions are woefully misinformed. That is one of the primary purposes of this FAQ: to provide as much information as possible in order to better inform people about this debate.

After all, the separation of church and state is not only misunderstood, it is also exceedingly important. That is probably one of the few points on which everyone on all sides of the debate can readily agree upon - their reasons for agreeing may differ, but they do concur that the separation of church and state is one of the key constitutional principles in American history.

Understanding the separation of church and state is complicated by the fact that we are using such a simplified phrase. There is, after all, no single "church." There are many religious organizations in the United States taking different names - church, synagogue, temple, Kingdom Hall and more. In addition, there are many corporate bodies which do not adopt any such religious titles but which are nevertheless controlled by religious organizations - for example, Catholic hospitals.

Also, there is no single "state." Instead, there are multiple levels of government at the federal, state, regional and local level. There is also a great variety of government organizations - commissions, departments, agencies and more. These can all have different levels of involvement and different relationships with the aforementioned religious organizations.

This is vitally important, because it underscores the fact that, in the "separation of church and state," we cannot be talking about a single, literal church and a single, literal state. Those terms are instead metaphors, meant to point to something else, something larger. As a strict separationist, I have very definite ideas about what those metaphors point towards.

I believe, and will support via the documents in this FAQ, that "church" should be construed as any organized religious body with its doctrines/dogmas, and "state" should be construed as any governmental body, any government-run organization or any government-sponsored event. As a result, a more accurate phrase than "separation of church and state" might be something like "separation of organized religion and civil authority," because religious and civil authorities are not and should not be invested in the same people or organizations.

In practice, this means that civil authority cannot dictate to or control organized religious bodies. The state cannot tell religious bodies what to preach, how to preach or when to preach. Civil authority must exercise a "hands off" approach, neither helping nor hindering religion in society. This is a key issue to understand, because any time the state assumes the power to either help or hinder, the state also acquires the power to do the other.

Separation of church and state is a two-way street, however. It isn't just about restricting what the government can do with religion, but also what religious bodies can do with the government. As a consequence, religious groups cannot dictate to or control the government. They cannot cause the government to adopt their particular doctrines as policy for everyone, they cannot cause the government to restrict other groups, etc.

This last issue is vital because it is important to remember that the biggest threat to religious freedom is not the government - or at least, not the government acting alone. We very rarely have a situation where secular government officials act to repress any particular religion or religion in general. More common are private religious organizations acting *through the government* by having their own doctrines and beliefs codified into law or policy.

Thus, the separation of church and state ensures that private citizens, when acting in the role of some government official, cannot have any aspect of their private religious beliefs imposed upon everyone else. School teachers cannot promote their religion to other people's children. Local officials cannot require certain religious beliefs on the part of government employees. Government leaders cannot make members of other religions feel like they are unwanted or are second-class citizens by using their position to promote particular religious beliefs - for example, through sectarian prayers or scriptural readings.

This enforces a certain moral self-restraint on government officials, and even to a degree on private citizens - a self-restraint which is necessary for a religiously pluralistic society to survive without descending into religious civil war. It ensures that the government remains the government of all citizens, not the government of one denomination or one religious tradition. It ensures that political divisions not be drawn along religious lines, with Protestants battling Catholics or Christians battling Muslims for "their share" of the public purse.

The separation of church and state is one of the key constitutional liberties which protects the American public from tyranny. It protects all people from the religious tyranny of any one religious group or tradition, and it protects all people from a government intent on tyrannizing some or any religious groups. We need the separation of church and state as much as we need any of the liberties guaranteed in the American Constitution.