CDZ Of the Church and State

[Elvis Obama]

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religion. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

For me it's absolute. No prayer in school, no religious symbols in courts, no "official" religion.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute;"
- JFK

Dear Elvis Obama to be absolutely consistent
what about these beliefs:
1. beliefs in capital punishment vs. beliefs in restitution and rehabilitation
2. beliefs in traditional marriage vs. same sex marriage and benefits
3. beliefs in putting the life of the child before the rights of the woman not to have free choice criminalized
4. beliefs about drugs being the choice of the individual not the govt
5. beliefs about health care being controlled through govt not individuals

If a vote is split 50/50 between half the group believing in traditional marriage only and the other half believing in same sex marriage and benefits, which do you go with?

Do you allow one group to get endorsed by govt while the other is excluded? Or do you tell both groups to keep their beliefs about marriage out of govt, and only keep govt in charge of neutral policies that both sides agree accommodate them equally without endorsing either sides' beliefs or biases.

Are you consistent with all beliefs, or just religious beliefs you oppose?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. As to what gets that gov't seal of approval, and what's the govt's business in the first place, well that's debatable across the board. Whatever cases the SC chooses to take on get the thumbs up/down treatment.If they decline cases all they're really saying is that they will accept the lower courts ruling. In all these cases they put the interests of one group ahead of another. It must be frustrating to consistently be on the side that gets thwarted.

 

[Holos]

Can you provide me an example, including, perhaps, passages of the Constitution and also passages of the Bible?

Here are just a couple of examples:

The structure of the separation of powers. That came via Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, which Montesquieu took from Isaiah 33:22, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” Madison referenced Montesquieu in Federalists No. 47as the source.

Article I, Section 7 the Sunday excepted clause.

Article VII. Franklin had the wording changed to reflect Jesus.

Article III, Section 3 the basis and criteria of the treason clause is identical to Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause mirrors Deuteronomy 17:6.

The Fourth Amendment's negative liberty clause comes from Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, and they comes from Leviticus 25:10.

The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause comes from Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The list goes on and is pretty extensive. Going back to the Saxons, English common law was heavily influenced and based on the Bible. Our current laws, for example, are biblically based and the Bible verse was inserted into the laws during the colonial era.

I thought we were going to have an interesting discussion when I started reading your post, as I can understand the political nature of the biblical prophets.

But then when I started reading your share of Constitution excerpts and how, in your opinion, they relate to the Bible I quickly realized you don't really know or understand the Bible.

After I verified Article I and VII to consider your proposal of cohesion I was truly obliged to refrain from verifying the rest of your proposals.

In other words, if you can't understand the beginning of the Old Testament and apparently mock the main character of the New Testament, then the further mention of Deutoronomy, not too advanced of a part from the very beginning of the whole work, simply warns me of an insistent baseless provocation, which of course I am not interested in because of the extent and influence of the Book if taken seriously as the accomplishment that it actually is.

I am having a hard time understanding the relevance of your post vis-a-vis mine.

My post had nothing to do with biblical prophets.

I understand the Bible as well any anyone, which is another discussion not related to this. My post is factually accurate regardless of an understanding of the Bible as it is based on the history of English common law and American law and the influence of biblically based English common law on the founders and the structure and some articles of the Constitution.

An understanding of the Old Testament is not a perquisite to American legal history.

I did no mock the “main character in the New Testament.”

You are responding as if you are responding to a different post other than mine.

You are welcome to make an argument that the substance of my post in not correct .

It seems you, Tennyson, suddenly got deranged about the premises to be discussed in the thread.

The beginning assumption was that we already have integrated in our lives the history of American Law and that according to our necessary consensus of the facts therein exposed, concluded and improved, we could continue to proceed with its inviting development.

Therefore I thought the First Amendment would be interesting to exemplify and discuss how after a very stable and provisional foundation there is still greater and increasing room for improvement, perhaps by previously unexamined religious standards instead of already well known political standards; laws altogether recognized from both forms of established organizational sources.

I am not deranged regarding the premise of this thread. My statements are germane as they were invited by your first post regarding the U.S. being a secular state. You made the statement of fact that “according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.” This is factually untrue and incapable of being substantiated, and this statement skews the basis of the ensuing arguments.

So far you have made two direct replies to me regarding my posts. Both were personal in nature and devoid of substance, a rebuttal, or a counter argument.

This is not a directed at you or your perceived inveigling powers of linguistic prowess, but regarding me: you do not have the skill-set to involve me in a churlish personal back and forth exchange in the stead of substantive arguments. Writing as if only a perfunctory effort was put forth to generate fustian and disjointed prose devoid of substance vis-à-vis the vernacular phraseology of a Southern redneck such as “I got sumpin to tell y’all ‘cause ima patrotic ‘Merican” will always be subordinate to substance. Civility will always triumph.

You may not be deranged, as you put it yourself, but your posts are definitely deranging within the thread and the initiating OP.

I did not say at all, or even propose, what kind of state the Constitution informs us of in relation to the status of our current Union. I said that in my experience I have come across many atheists and other people considering the State to be secular, rather they were aware of the Constitution or not, since at that time I was simply an observer and passerby and could not stand the trial of having the discussion we are having now.

My proposal was to have different perspectives exposed so that eventually I could perhaps introduce mine if it happened to be neglected, misconstrued or poorly conducive. Do you now understand how your posts are deranging? You seem to not be paying attention to the logic structure but only to the sentiments from there derived or from there reminiscent, which of course are never apart of your own bias or mine. Again, do not misunderstand, there is nothing wrong with bias and sentimental arguments, but that was neither the initial proposal or appointed direction of the thread.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religion. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

For me it's absolute. No prayer in school, no religious symbols in courts, no "official" religion.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute;"
- JFK

I agree with no official religion. But what of those other things do you see as 'establishment' of religion?

Everything. As I say I'm an absolutist. I'm also like a person in an enormous, garbage-strewn room, who picks up one piece of junk, looks at all the tons and tons left untouched, and drops his piece and walks away, shaking his head. Eradicating every last vestige of religion from our culture would be harmful, and the few bits which dangle over over into the public sphere are hardly worth getting our bits tied in a knot over.

Others disagree however, and I certainly see their points.Whereas I might see the presence of a religious themed work such as the Ten Commandments in an historic context, and see it as I would see the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta, as merely symbolic of the rule of law, and therefore appropriate for a court of law, others don't.

Once they bring up the point, what counter argument can be made? The Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta were examples of statutory law. The Ten Commandments is Moses sitting on God's lap taking dictation. Blind Justice is the most appropriate symbol for a court of law to display, but if push comes to shove don't have any symbology at all, if it creates the impression of a bias. Shouldn't a court of law be bending over backwards to make sure all hint of bias is eradicated, rather than rushing forward to defend their right to be at least partially offensive?

School prayer and the inclusion of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are old favs in the secularism debate. That I was forced, every school day, to proclaim my non-existent allegiance to a silly fantasy figure, just because Dwight David Eisenhower decided I should, sums up everything that's wrong with this debate. Political representation and religion are matter and anti-matter. No one rational wants to mix them up. No one irrational can be swayed by reason. My opinion is that the taint of religion weakens all public institutions, and should be eliminated. I'm not motivated to make this my mission in life, but when someone else is arsed to do something, they have my sympathy and my respect for standing up for principle. What principle does the other side of the debate uphold except quaint notions of tradition?

 

[Foxfyre]

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religion. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

For me it's absolute. No prayer in school, no religious symbols in courts, no "official" religion.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute;"
- JFK

I agree with no official religion. But what of those other things do you see as 'establishment' of religion?

Everything. As I say I'm an absolutist. I'm also like a person in an enormous, garbage-strewn room, who picks up one piece of junk, looks at all the tons and tons left untouched, and drops his piece and walks away, shaking his head. Eradicating every last vestige of religion from our culture would be harmful, and the few bits which dangle over over into the public sphere are hardly worth getting our bits tied in a knot over.

Others disagree however, and I certainly see their points.Whereas I might see the presence of a religious themed work such as the Ten Commandments in an historic context, and see it as I would see the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta, as merely symbolic of the rule of law, and therefore appropriate for a court of law, others don't.

Once they bring up the point, what counter argument can be made? The Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta were examples of statutory law. The Ten Commandments is Moses sitting on God's lap taking dictation. Blind Justice is the most appropriate symbol for a court of law to display, but if push comes to shove don't have any symbology at all, if it creates the impression of a bias. Shouldn't a court of law be bending over backwards to make sure all hint of bias is eradicated, rather than rushing forward to defend their right to be at least partially offensive?

School prayer and the inclusion of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are old favs in the secularism debate. That I was forced, every school day, to proclaim my non-existent allegiance to a silly fantasy figure, just because Dwight David Eisenhower decided I should, sums up everything that's wrong with this debate. Political representation and religion are matter and anti-matter. No one rational wants to mix them up. No one irrational can be swayed by reason. My opinion is that the taint of religion weakens all public institutions, and should be eliminated. I'm not motivated to make this my mission in life, but when someone else is arsed to do something, they have my sympathy and my respect for standing up for principle. What principle does the other side of the debate uphold except quaint notions of tradition?

The government and the courts rightly agreed that no child should have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school. So that one is a non starter in this debate. Personally I think required recitation of the Pledge or respect for the flag is not an establishment of any religion though and should not be a matter for the courts should they be school policy.

I was old enough to be aware when the phrase 'under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and it struck me as odd at the time. But even being intensely interested in all things Constitutional from public high school to state university and beyond--I considered going into law at one time actually--I could not make an argument that the phrase constituted an establishment of religion in any way even when mandatory. It did not attach "God" to any religion or anything religious. It was, to me, just a historical reference to the concept that recognizes that our unalienable rights are not inventions of government but natural, or in the vernacular of even the most areligious of the Founders, God given. It is the same concept in which I view the national motto "In God We Trust" that is on our federally issued money.

Likewise I could not lay my finger on any principle that would turn 'bias' or acknowledgment of any particular religion an establishment of religion. So long as no participation or contribution of any kind is required, so long as there is no benefit given to one that is not given to all and/or no penalty that is given to one that is no given to all, there is no establishment of religion. So likewise a copy of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" or a copy of the Ten Commandments or plaque engrave with the Code of Hammurabi etc. hung in the school classroom or in the county courthouse or the halls of Congress in no way require any participation or contribution by anybody and IMO are 100% constitutionally legal. Nor is singing traditional Christmas carols in a school CHRISTMAS program a violation of the establishment clause because music, especially the classics, is not an establishment of religion even if it was produced for religious reasons. But the government telling anybody of any faith or any belief how and where he/she is permitted to express that faith or belief is absolutely a violation of the First Amendment.

In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended.

 

[Foxfyre]

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.

I don't see a student led or traditional generic community prayer as anything other than a constitutionally protected personal expression of religion. It requires no participation from anybody else. It requires no contribution from anybody else. It makes no requirement of anybody. The only expectation from anybody else is their non interference and perhaps some courtesy.

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

The courts have ruled against no such thing.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies solely to government, not to private persons or originations, both of which are at liberty to engage in religious expression in any venue so desired, public or private.

Students attending public schools, for example, are at liberty to engage in religious practice and expression while at school, provided such practice or expression comports with Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

However, when student “invocations are authorized by a government policy and take place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events*,” such invocations cross the Constitutional line from the realm of private speech to that of government speech – and being religious in nature, violate the First Amendment (see Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe*).

Don't cite me case law. I strongly disagree with the courts on most of their decisions in this regard. In fact most prior courts would have disagreed with modern day courts in this regard. How does a student led prayer as an invocation before a school assembly or a generic prayer before a football game, both long standing customs in a community, establish any religion? How does forbidding such a prayer not violate the free exercise of religion?

Dear Foxfyre if this is conducted through public institutions, then it is on the taxpayer dollar. And so is denying the expression a form of govt establishing the opposite view.

thus the solution is either to
* separate the funding and let communities choose what to fund and how to set up schools to reflect what they AGREE to have going on there (and dissenters who don't want to fund that publicly can fund their own schools and policies, while these others can set up theirs otherwise)
* agree on how to handle invocations and prayers democratically, such as allowing students to rotate and present elected student reps to give invocations approved in advance for content and terminology.
Either take turns or find other solutions that everyone agrees represents their school community and members. Or separate and building private programs that allow that freedom without conflicts with others and with govt.

If the institution is authorized to spend taxpayer monies on ANY artwork of any kind, then there is no constitutional basis for the artwork that is selected to be of an entirely secular nature. Art is art regardless of what various people might see in it. Most religious artwork that we find in the public venue are contributions from the private sector anyway. The authors and signatories of the Constitution certainly had no problem with religious art or expressions in the public venue that made no demands of any kind and exacted no participation or contribution on the people. Religion is such a rich part of our culture and national heritage that it would be stupid and dishonest to leave it out of the public venue.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religion. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

For me it's absolute. No prayer in school, no religious symbols in courts, no "official" religion.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute;"
- JFK

I agree with no official religion. But what of those other things do you see as 'establishment' of religion?

Everything. As I say I'm an absolutist. I'm also like a person in an enormous, garbage-strewn room, who picks up one piece of junk, looks at all the tons and tons left untouched, and drops his piece and walks away, shaking his head. Eradicating every last vestige of religion from our culture would be harmful, and the few bits which dangle over over into the public sphere are hardly worth getting our bits tied in a knot over.

Others disagree however, and I certainly see their points.Whereas I might see the presence of a religious themed work such as the Ten Commandments in an historic context, and see it as I would see the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta, as merely symbolic of the rule of law, and therefore appropriate for a court of law, others don't.

Once they bring up the point, what counter argument can be made? The Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta were examples of statutory law. The Ten Commandments is Moses sitting on God's lap taking dictation. Blind Justice is the most appropriate symbol for a court of law to display, but if push comes to shove don't have any symbology at all, if it creates the impression of a bias. Shouldn't a court of law be bending over backwards to make sure all hint of bias is eradicated, rather than rushing forward to defend their right to be at least partially offensive?

School prayer and the inclusion of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are old favs in the secularism debate. That I was forced, every school day, to proclaim my non-existent allegiance to a silly fantasy figure, just because Dwight David Eisenhower decided I should, sums up everything that's wrong with this debate. Political representation and religion are matter and anti-matter. No one rational wants to mix them up. No one irrational can be swayed by reason. My opinion is that the taint of religion weakens all public institutions, and should be eliminated. I'm not motivated to make this my mission in life, but when someone else is arsed to do something, they have my sympathy and my respect for standing up for principle. What principle does the other side of the debate uphold except quaint notions of tradition?

The government and the courts rightly agreed that no child should have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school. So that one is a non starter in this debate. Personally I think required recitation of the Pledge or respect for the flag is not an establishment of any religion though and should not be a matter for the courts should they be school policy.

I was old enough to be aware when the phrase 'under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and it struck me as odd at the time. But even being intensely interested in all things Constitutional from public high school to state university and beyond--I considered going into law at one time actually--I could not make an argument that the phrase constituted an establishment of religion in any way even when mandatory. It did not attach "God" to any religion or anything religious. It was, to me, just a historical reference to the concept that recognizes that our unalienable rights are not inventions of government but natural, or in the vernacular of even the most areligious of the Founders, God given. It is the same concept in which I view the national motto "In God We Trust" that is on our federally issued money.

Likewise I could not lay my finger on any principle that would turn 'bias' or acknowledgment of any particular religion an establishment of religion. So long as no participation or contribution of any kind is required, so long as there is no benefit given to one that is not given to all and/or no penalty that is given to one that is no given to all, there is no establishment of religion. So likewise a copy of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" or a copy of the Ten Commandments or plaque engrave with the Code of Hammurabi etc. hung in the school classroom or in the county courthouse or the halls of Congress in no way require any participation or contribution by anybody and IMO are 100% constitutionally legal. Nor is singing traditional Christmas carols in a school CHRISTMAS program a violation of the establishment clause because music, especially the classics, is not an establishment of religion even if it was produced for religious reasons. But the government telling anybody of any faith or any belief how and where he/she is permitted to express that faith or belief is absolutely a violation of the First Amendment.

In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended.

"In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended."

We shall never be able to agree, or even profitably debate this matter. Whether you are incapable of understanding the reason why the figure of justice is blindfolded, or you choose to ignore the reason why because of religious fanaticism, the result is the same. If I am to be perfectly honest about it, I couldn't care less about your "hurt" religious feelings any more than you care about someone else's secular disgust. I find your argument about the notion of children being "shamed" by the absence of religion in their classrooms to be laughable.

I'll stick with Jefferson and Washington and JFK.

 

[Holos]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof;"

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

You start out with a logical fallacy, because there is NOT a general consensus that the US is a secular state.

In other words, crap OP.

If I were to begin a thread simply for educational purposes (that is, requiring absolutely no feedback in return, but being freely delighted to be rewarded with a better education) I probably wouldn't do it in the Clean Debate Zone.

What you have called a logical fallacy is simply the sharing of a not fully understood observation, since I wasn't really attempting to prove anything but was only providing an apparent error I had experienced so that we could begin from there to form our positions for debate.

I assumed indeed that the observation was an error, as you have probably noticed for identifying it with a fallacy. Not all errors are fallacies, even as all fallacies are errors. What I exposed was no fallacy because I had not made any in depth analysis of the situation and only presented it as a possible debatable thematic. I did not make an in depth analysis prior to participation because that would probably reduce the number of participants. An in depth perspective on this topic may be so extreme (and righteously forwarding) to actually be a solitary experience in relation to other individuals or groups that would not comprehend the extending analysis.

I am pretty sure there are certain distant and isolated groups in which there are different consensus to what kind of state the US is or even what any secular state is, which is why I created this thread so individuals may either craft their ways into groups of their choice or so that groups represented by individuals may craft their ways towards or away from other represented groups, as a purposeful debate is always set to do appropriately.

Tell me, even if there really is no consensus at all that the US is a secular state, would it be to its benefit that such a consensus might exist? And if we can indeed make it exist through our debate for the agreed benefit of the state that would be agreed upon within the debate, should the aimed consensus become known to other groups who would care for another, perhaps more advanced and complex, debate to either refute it or improve its concessions for the greater number of groups existing within the US?

 

[Holos]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof;"

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

Dear Holos for the government to be NEUTRAL in areas of religion and beliefs,
this means
NEITHER establishing religion / faith based bias
NOR prohibiting it.

For example, if different people conduct communion under different rules, or don't require this at all, that is up to the people. The Govt does not make any ruling or law concerning rules on communions.

As a Democrat who believes in protecting "equal choice' for all people, regardless of belief,
I believe in treating religious, secular and political beliefs equally as BELIEFS, where Govt
cannot get involved in "taking sides" and endorsing one side while neglecting the other.

So for marriage laws, the govt should only be in charge of civil contracts between partners,
but NOT be in the business of regulating what "relationship the people have to be" in order
to have a financial or property contract enforced between them by informed consent at all times.
I would leave the social and spiritual rules/beliefs about marriage to the people to mandate through their own private groups, and not impose their beliefs outside the consenting group agreeing to those rules.

In addition to the First amendment on neither establishing nor denying religion,
I also recommend
* the Bill of Rights
* the Code of Ethics for Govt Service
* the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act
where 'discrimination by creed' would violate the spirit of these other laws

Hi emily,

I agree that the government is neutral, as it has to serve impartially the entire population with its wide variety of harmless practices. There is no argument there.

What I would like to know is if you think that besides government neutrality in relation to the establishment or prohibition of religion there can also be something in the lines of a "neutral government enforcement" to continue and improve governmental operation in relation to the different possibilities that religion might offer to the whole of politics without sabotaging or subjugating any part of it already completely functional.

 

[Tennyson]

And this would be an example of appropriate religious expression in government consistent with Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Such references to a deity on coinage or displayed in a court of law does not violate the First Amendment.

The Ten Commandments are OK, maybe, cause they starred in a Cecille B. DeMille picture once upon a time, so they're "cultural" symbols not "religious" symbols, or maybe they're not OK, because they don't have a sufficiently secular setting to make their cultural context clear, blah, blah, blah. And I will gladly pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

Let's say you are an American who proudly upholds their right to "freedom from religion"? How are you supposed to feel, going into a court of law, like something out of My Cousin Vinny, only to see your right to freedom from religion violated by the presence of religious symbols in the court building? The only symbol I want to see is Blind Justice.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute..."
- JFK

There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

There was no standing for atheists under the First Amendment's religious clauses as not believing in God eliminated their protection under “religion” in the First Amendment.

An example by Ellsworth of a typical exchange during the debates:

But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and public detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.​

"There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

Sure there is. The establishment clause. No rights are unconditional, however. Not a free press, free speech, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. These rights are often in conflict and need to be balanced by ordinary human beings, who have their own biases. Government, whether it's courts, public schools, public libraries, can't be seen to favor one group over another.

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

These debates only have three different constructions:

1. The original meaning, intent, and general understanding of the day.

2. A Supreme Court ruling, which is factual and warrants no debate, and the application and effect of the ruling, which does warrant limited debate.

3. Debating the constitutional basis of a Supreme Court ruling. This is similar to number one, but it is a different debate as rulings are pregnant with case law, which is nothing more than judicial inbreeding, and this enters into the debate.

The problem with debates regarding the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is the incorporating of more than of the above.

LGBT rights were not recognized in Obergefell v. Hodges, but were created by Kennedy.Rights do not suddenly appear in the Constitution after 200+ years. Nothing was perfected by that ruling other than an assault on what constitutes a fundamental right, and distorting history by using substantive due process as this “recognized” right.

 

[Tennyson]

The Ten Commandments are OK, maybe, cause they starred in a Cecille B. DeMille picture once upon a time, so they're "cultural" symbols not "religious" symbols, or maybe they're not OK, because they don't have a sufficiently secular setting to make their cultural context clear, blah, blah, blah. And I will gladly pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

Let's say you are an American who proudly upholds their right to "freedom from religion"? How are you supposed to feel, going into a court of law, like something out of My Cousin Vinny, only to see your right to freedom from religion violated by the presence of religious symbols in the court building? The only symbol I want to see is Blind Justice.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute..."
- JFK

There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

There was no standing for atheists under the First Amendment's religious clauses as not believing in God eliminated their protection under “religion” in the First Amendment.

An example by Ellsworth of a typical exchange during the debates:

But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and public detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.​

"There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

Sure there is. The establishment clause. No rights are unconditional, however. Not a free press, free speech, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. These rights are often in conflict and need to be balanced by ordinary human beings, who have their own biases. Government, whether it's courts, public schools, public libraries, can't be seen to favor one group over another.

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The right to life was well established when then Constitution was written. The right to life in the Fifth Amendment came from Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. The right to life under Lockean Libertarianism if found in the libertarian “aggress” doctrine and self-ownership doctrine.

 

[Tennyson]

Here are just a couple of examples:

The structure of the separation of powers. That came via Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, which Montesquieu took from Isaiah 33:22, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” Madison referenced Montesquieu in Federalists No. 47as the source.

Article I, Section 7 the Sunday excepted clause.

Article VII. Franklin had the wording changed to reflect Jesus.

Article III, Section 3 the basis and criteria of the treason clause is identical to Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause mirrors Deuteronomy 17:6.

The Fourth Amendment's negative liberty clause comes from Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, and they comes from Leviticus 25:10.

The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause comes from Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The list goes on and is pretty extensive. Going back to the Saxons, English common law was heavily influenced and based on the Bible. Our current laws, for example, are biblically based and the Bible verse was inserted into the laws during the colonial era.

I thought we were going to have an interesting discussion when I started reading your post, as I can understand the political nature of the biblical prophets.

But then when I started reading your share of Constitution excerpts and how, in your opinion, they relate to the Bible I quickly realized you don't really know or understand the Bible.

After I verified Article I and VII to consider your proposal of cohesion I was truly obliged to refrain from verifying the rest of your proposals.

In other words, if you can't understand the beginning of the Old Testament and apparently mock the main character of the New Testament, then the further mention of Deutoronomy, not too advanced of a part from the very beginning of the whole work, simply warns me of an insistent baseless provocation, which of course I am not interested in because of the extent and influence of the Book if taken seriously as the accomplishment that it actually is.

I am having a hard time understanding the relevance of your post vis-a-vis mine.

My post had nothing to do with biblical prophets.

I understand the Bible as well any anyone, which is another discussion not related to this. My post is factually accurate regardless of an understanding of the Bible as it is based on the history of English common law and American law and the influence of biblically based English common law on the founders and the structure and some articles of the Constitution.

An understanding of the Old Testament is not a perquisite to American legal history.

I did no mock the “main character in the New Testament.”

You are responding as if you are responding to a different post other than mine.

You are welcome to make an argument that the substance of my post in not correct .

It seems you, Tennyson, suddenly got deranged about the premises to be discussed in the thread.

The beginning assumption was that we already have integrated in our lives the history of American Law and that according to our necessary consensus of the facts therein exposed, concluded and improved, we could continue to proceed with its inviting development.

Therefore I thought the First Amendment would be interesting to exemplify and discuss how after a very stable and provisional foundation there is still greater and increasing room for improvement, perhaps by previously unexamined religious standards instead of already well known political standards; laws altogether recognized from both forms of established organizational sources.

I am not deranged regarding the premise of this thread. My statements are germane as they were invited by your first post regarding the U.S. being a secular state. You made the statement of fact that “according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.” This is factually untrue and incapable of being substantiated, and this statement skews the basis of the ensuing arguments.

So far you have made two direct replies to me regarding my posts. Both were personal in nature and devoid of substance, a rebuttal, or a counter argument.

This is not a directed at you or your perceived inveigling powers of linguistic prowess, but regarding me: you do not have the skill-set to involve me in a churlish personal back and forth exchange in the stead of substantive arguments. Writing as if only a perfunctory effort was put forth to generate fustian and disjointed prose devoid of substance vis-à-vis the vernacular phraseology of a Southern redneck such as “I got sumpin to tell y’all ‘cause ima patrotic ‘Merican” will always be subordinate to substance. Civility will always triumph.

You may not be deranged, as you put it yourself, but your posts are definitely deranging within the thread and the initiating OP.

I did not say at all, or even propose, what kind of state the Constitution informs us of in relation to the status of our current Union. I said that in my experience I have come across many atheists and other people considering the State to be secular, rather they were aware of the Constitution or not, since at that time I was simply an observer and passerby and could not stand the trial of having the discussion we are having now.

My proposal was to have different perspectives exposed so that eventually I could perhaps introduce mine if it happened to be neglected, misconstrued or poorly conducive. Do you now understand how your posts are deranging? You seem to not be paying attention to the logic structure but only to the sentiments from there derived or from there reminiscent, which of course are never apart of your own bias or mine. Again, do not misunderstand, there is nothing wrong with bias and sentimental arguments, but that was neither the initial proposal or appointed direction of the thread.

I said that in my experience I have come across many atheists and other people considering the State to be secular, rather they were aware of the Constitution or not, since at that time I was simply an observer and passerby and could not stand the trial of having the discussion we are having now.

This phrase I understand and can appreciate, but that is not the phrase I was referencing. With that said, I do not believe that either of us are interested in a petty back and forth regarding pedestrian semantics.

 

[Foxfyre]

For me it's absolute. No prayer in school, no religious symbols in courts, no "official" religion.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute;"
- JFK

I agree with no official religion. But what of those other things do you see as 'establishment' of religion?

Everything. As I say I'm an absolutist. I'm also like a person in an enormous, garbage-strewn room, who picks up one piece of junk, looks at all the tons and tons left untouched, and drops his piece and walks away, shaking his head. Eradicating every last vestige of religion from our culture would be harmful, and the few bits which dangle over over into the public sphere are hardly worth getting our bits tied in a knot over.

Others disagree however, and I certainly see their points.Whereas I might see the presence of a religious themed work such as the Ten Commandments in an historic context, and see it as I would see the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta, as merely symbolic of the rule of law, and therefore appropriate for a court of law, others don't.

Once they bring up the point, what counter argument can be made? The Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta were examples of statutory law. The Ten Commandments is Moses sitting on God's lap taking dictation. Blind Justice is the most appropriate symbol for a court of law to display, but if push comes to shove don't have any symbology at all, if it creates the impression of a bias. Shouldn't a court of law be bending over backwards to make sure all hint of bias is eradicated, rather than rushing forward to defend their right to be at least partially offensive?

School prayer and the inclusion of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are old favs in the secularism debate. That I was forced, every school day, to proclaim my non-existent allegiance to a silly fantasy figure, just because Dwight David Eisenhower decided I should, sums up everything that's wrong with this debate. Political representation and religion are matter and anti-matter. No one rational wants to mix them up. No one irrational can be swayed by reason. My opinion is that the taint of religion weakens all public institutions, and should be eliminated. I'm not motivated to make this my mission in life, but when someone else is arsed to do something, they have my sympathy and my respect for standing up for principle. What principle does the other side of the debate uphold except quaint notions of tradition?

The government and the courts rightly agreed that no child should have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school. So that one is a non starter in this debate. Personally I think required recitation of the Pledge or respect for the flag is not an establishment of any religion though and should not be a matter for the courts should they be school policy.

I was old enough to be aware when the phrase 'under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and it struck me as odd at the time. But even being intensely interested in all things Constitutional from public high school to state university and beyond--I considered going into law at one time actually--I could not make an argument that the phrase constituted an establishment of religion in any way even when mandatory. It did not attach "God" to any religion or anything religious. It was, to me, just a historical reference to the concept that recognizes that our unalienable rights are not inventions of government but natural, or in the vernacular of even the most areligious of the Founders, God given. It is the same concept in which I view the national motto "In God We Trust" that is on our federally issued money.

Likewise I could not lay my finger on any principle that would turn 'bias' or acknowledgment of any particular religion an establishment of religion. So long as no participation or contribution of any kind is required, so long as there is no benefit given to one that is not given to all and/or no penalty that is given to one that is no given to all, there is no establishment of religion. So likewise a copy of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" or a copy of the Ten Commandments or plaque engrave with the Code of Hammurabi etc. hung in the school classroom or in the county courthouse or the halls of Congress in no way require any participation or contribution by anybody and IMO are 100% constitutionally legal. Nor is singing traditional Christmas carols in a school CHRISTMAS program a violation of the establishment clause because music, especially the classics, is not an establishment of religion even if it was produced for religious reasons. But the government telling anybody of any faith or any belief how and where he/she is permitted to express that faith or belief is absolutely a violation of the First Amendment.

In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended.

"In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended."

We shall never be able to agree, or even profitably debate this matter. Whether you are incapable of understanding the reason why the figure of justice is blindfolded, or you choose to ignore the reason why because of religious fanaticism, the result is the same. If I am to be perfectly honest about it, I couldn't care less about your "hurt" religious feelings any more than you care about someone else's secular disgust. I find your argument about the notion of children being "shamed" by the absence of religion in their classrooms to be laughable.

I'll stick with Jefferson and Washington and JFK.

If the figure of justice is truly blindfolded, then there would be no prejudice against religious expression wherever it is so long as it required no response, participation, or obligation from any other. Right? And it would not matter whether that religious expression was in the halls of Congress or in the courtroom or in the classroom.

The difference between your argument and mine is that I allow you your secular disgust and do not require you not to express it. You apparently would deny me the right to express my religious belief in the classroom or other public venue. So in which case is the figure of justice blindfolded?

But we can agree on Washington, Jefferson, and JFK.

Start with JFK who said at his inaugural address: “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” In a speech in Boston he cited Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote: "unless religion is the first link, all is vain." On the campaign trail in Utah he said: "“we have become missionaries abroad of a wide range of doctrines – free enterprise, anti-Communism and pro-Americanism – but rarely ... religious liberty.”

As President, George Washington wrote a letter of reassurance to a Jewish congregation stating: "For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens…May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants."

Jefferson's point of view in a nutshell is this argument for the "Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom": "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error." We have no record whether he extended this to the public schools, but it is a near certainty that he would have.

The point is that religion once co-existed quite peacefully in the schools. In cases where it was forced on the kids, those were rightfully adjudicated as the public schools should never have license to do that. But neither should they have license to make the children's religious faith unwelcome in the schools or prohibit their constitutionally protected right to express it in non offensive or non disruptive ways. And too many, probably the vast majority, of public schools do just that out of fear of having to defend lawsuits initiated by such people as you.

 

[Holos]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof;"

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

it's pretty much settled law.

the government is supposed to stay out of people's religions and government isn't allowed to favor any religion over another.

The nature of law is to be settled, for maintenance and security, but continuous and safe settlement is not all of the law's purpose.

For what other reason could the law have possibly been established then? I suggest that it is both for regulating and advancing development and progress alike, not simply for a prolonged static recurring achievement (the alternating between luxury peak experiences and peaceful moments of restful recovery).

The regulation and advancement I suggest the law promotes is not really of enforcement, but of opportunity, and when it relates to religion it could perhaps directly inform us about the possible contributions of all religions throughout Constitutional articles and other legal documents without any favoritism or neglect.

I think most perspectives in this discussion so far have been considering the State as only possibly having an indirect reach towards religious activities and therefore only recognizing the relationship of State and Church as either neutral or intervening. What I think is possible and would also like to know what others think about the possibility is the direct functioning of religion and government within the same laws referred and guarded by either agencies when being applied to civil progress and development. Can we come from a religious background, study the laws of the State and gain insight to both State and Church? Can we come from a governmental background, study the laws of religion and gain insight to both Church and State?

 

[Foxfyre]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof;"

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

it's pretty much settled law.

the government is supposed to stay out of people's religions and government isn't allowed to favor any religion over another.

The nature of law is to be settled, for maintenance and security, but continuous and safe settlement is not all of the law's purpose.

For what other reason could the law have possibly been established then? I suggest that it is both for regulating and advancing development and progress alike, not simply for a prolonged static recurring achievement (the alternating between luxury peak experiences and peaceful moments of restful recovery).

The regulation and advancement I suggest the law promotes is not really of enforcement, but of opportunity, and when it relates to religion it could perhaps directly inform us about the possible contributions of all religions throughout Constitutional articles and other legal documents without any favoritism or neglect.

I think most perspectives in this discussion so far have been considering the State as only possibly having an indirect reach towards religious activities and therefore only recognizing the relationship of State and Church as either neutral or intervening. What I think is possible and would also like to know what others think about the possibility is the direct functioning of religion and government within the same laws referred and guarded by either agencies when being applied to civil progress and development. Can we come from a religious background, study the laws of the State and gain insight to both State and Church? Can we come from a governmental background, study the laws of religion and gain insight to both Church and State?

In my opinion, the only valid function of federal law is to establish perimeters to secure the rights and property of the citizens and protect the integrity of the Constitution that recognizes those rights and property and to allow the states to function as one nation without doing violence to each other. There is no other valid purpose of the federal law. The Founders intended that the people otherwise would have complete liberty to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have including whatever laws they wished to govern themselves. From their point of view, liberty cannot exist if power is given to a central authority to dictate what the law will be.

In matter of religion, the federal government was given no authority or power to dictate or favor any religion or religious practice and was constitutionally prohibited from making any law that would dictate religion or religious beliefs or practice to any citizen or deny the citizen the free exercise of his/her religious beliefs or lack thereof. The federal government cannot reward us or punish any citizen for what he or she practices or believes in matters of religion.

However, so long as no participation or contribution is required of any other, those in government are 100% free to be as religious or non religious as they choose to be.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I agree with no official religion. But what of those other things do you see as 'establishment' of religion?

Everything. As I say I'm an absolutist. I'm also like a person in an enormous, garbage-strewn room, who picks up one piece of junk, looks at all the tons and tons left untouched, and drops his piece and walks away, shaking his head. Eradicating every last vestige of religion from our culture would be harmful, and the few bits which dangle over over into the public sphere are hardly worth getting our bits tied in a knot over.

Others disagree however, and I certainly see their points.Whereas I might see the presence of a religious themed work such as the Ten Commandments in an historic context, and see it as I would see the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta, as merely symbolic of the rule of law, and therefore appropriate for a court of law, others don't.

Once they bring up the point, what counter argument can be made? The Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta were examples of statutory law. The Ten Commandments is Moses sitting on God's lap taking dictation. Blind Justice is the most appropriate symbol for a court of law to display, but if push comes to shove don't have any symbology at all, if it creates the impression of a bias. Shouldn't a court of law be bending over backwards to make sure all hint of bias is eradicated, rather than rushing forward to defend their right to be at least partially offensive?

School prayer and the inclusion of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are old favs in the secularism debate. That I was forced, every school day, to proclaim my non-existent allegiance to a silly fantasy figure, just because Dwight David Eisenhower decided I should, sums up everything that's wrong with this debate. Political representation and religion are matter and anti-matter. No one rational wants to mix them up. No one irrational can be swayed by reason. My opinion is that the taint of religion weakens all public institutions, and should be eliminated. I'm not motivated to make this my mission in life, but when someone else is arsed to do something, they have my sympathy and my respect for standing up for principle. What principle does the other side of the debate uphold except quaint notions of tradition?

The government and the courts rightly agreed that no child should have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school. So that one is a non starter in this debate. Personally I think required recitation of the Pledge or respect for the flag is not an establishment of any religion though and should not be a matter for the courts should they be school policy.

I was old enough to be aware when the phrase 'under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and it struck me as odd at the time. But even being intensely interested in all things Constitutional from public high school to state university and beyond--I considered going into law at one time actually--I could not make an argument that the phrase constituted an establishment of religion in any way even when mandatory. It did not attach "God" to any religion or anything religious. It was, to me, just a historical reference to the concept that recognizes that our unalienable rights are not inventions of government but natural, or in the vernacular of even the most areligious of the Founders, God given. It is the same concept in which I view the national motto "In God We Trust" that is on our federally issued money.

Likewise I could not lay my finger on any principle that would turn 'bias' or acknowledgment of any particular religion an establishment of religion. So long as no participation or contribution of any kind is required, so long as there is no benefit given to one that is not given to all and/or no penalty that is given to one that is no given to all, there is no establishment of religion. So likewise a copy of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" or a copy of the Ten Commandments or plaque engrave with the Code of Hammurabi etc. hung in the school classroom or in the county courthouse or the halls of Congress in no way require any participation or contribution by anybody and IMO are 100% constitutionally legal. Nor is singing traditional Christmas carols in a school CHRISTMAS program a violation of the establishment clause because music, especially the classics, is not an establishment of religion even if it was produced for religious reasons. But the government telling anybody of any faith or any belief how and where he/she is permitted to express that faith or belief is absolutely a violation of the First Amendment.

In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended.

"In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended."

We shall never be able to agree, or even profitably debate this matter. Whether you are incapable of understanding the reason why the figure of justice is blindfolded, or you choose to ignore the reason why because of religious fanaticism, the result is the same. If I am to be perfectly honest about it, I couldn't care less about your "hurt" religious feelings any more than you care about someone else's secular disgust. I find your argument about the notion of children being "shamed" by the absence of religion in their classrooms to be laughable.

I'll stick with Jefferson and Washington and JFK.

If the figure of justice is truly blindfolded, then there would be no prejudice against religious expression wherever it is so long as it required no response, participation, or obligation from any other. Right? And it would not matter whether that religious expression was in the halls of Congress or in the courtroom or in the classroom.

The difference between your argument and mine is that I allow you your secular disgust and do not require you not to express it. You apparently would deny me the right to express my religious belief in the classroom or other public venue. So in which case is the figure of justice blindfolded?

But we can agree on Washington, Jefferson, and JFK.

Start with JFK who said at his inaugural address: “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” In a speech in Boston he cited Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote: "unless religion is the first link, all is vain." On the campaign trail in Utah he said: "“we have become missionaries abroad of a wide range of doctrines – free enterprise, anti-Communism and pro-Americanism – but rarely ... religious liberty.”

As President, George Washington wrote a letter of reassurance to a Jewish congregation stating: "For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens…May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants."

Jefferson's point of view in a nutshell is this argument for the "Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom": "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error." We have no record whether he extended this to the public schools, but it is a near certainty that he would have.

The point is that religion once co-existed quite peacefully in the schools. In cases where it was forced on the kids, those were rightfully adjudicated as the public schools should never have license to do that. But neither should they have license to make the children's religious faith unwelcome in the schools or prohibit their constitutionally protected right to express it in non offensive or non disruptive ways. And too many, probably the vast majority, of public schools do just that out of fear of having to defend lawsuits initiated by such people as you.

JFK's personal beliefs regarding spiritual matters had nothing to do with whether or not he embraced the concept of the separation of church and state, which is the sole subject under discussion here. He did.

Now let's try to be grownups, shall we? The fact is that JFK said what he did for political purposes, to bend over backwards to prove to the voters of America that he was beholden to no foreign Pope or prince. Maybe he wasn't a simon-pure advocate for anything. maybe he was (gasp) a complex and contradictory human being, and not a figure out of myth and legend. What no one can say is that JFK was a complete hypocrite and believed in these principles out of political expediency alone. That Jefferson, who touted the importance of a "wall of separation between church and state", didn't really mean it.

The separation of church and state is a very new idea, given the many centuries we defined leadership as divine or divinely sanctioned. Achieving the kind of absolute separation that JFK cited as an ideal is not easily done. There is also no hurry. These things will play out in their own time and in their own way. I'm confident that this concept, which is a reflection of American ideals at their finest, will become evermore perfected. I am also confident that you, and others like you, will be threatened by this ever more perfected wall of separation, and will do all you can to undermine it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Everything. As I say I'm an absolutist. I'm also like a person in an enormous, garbage-strewn room, who picks up one piece of junk, looks at all the tons and tons left untouched, and drops his piece and walks away, shaking his head. Eradicating every last vestige of religion from our culture would be harmful, and the few bits which dangle over over into the public sphere are hardly worth getting our bits tied in a knot over.

Others disagree however, and I certainly see their points.Whereas I might see the presence of a religious themed work such as the Ten Commandments in an historic context, and see it as I would see the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta, as merely symbolic of the rule of law, and therefore appropriate for a court of law, others don't.

Once they bring up the point, what counter argument can be made? The Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta were examples of statutory law. The Ten Commandments is Moses sitting on God's lap taking dictation. Blind Justice is the most appropriate symbol for a court of law to display, but if push comes to shove don't have any symbology at all, if it creates the impression of a bias. Shouldn't a court of law be bending over backwards to make sure all hint of bias is eradicated, rather than rushing forward to defend their right to be at least partially offensive?

School prayer and the inclusion of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are old favs in the secularism debate. That I was forced, every school day, to proclaim my non-existent allegiance to a silly fantasy figure, just because Dwight David Eisenhower decided I should, sums up everything that's wrong with this debate. Political representation and religion are matter and anti-matter. No one rational wants to mix them up. No one irrational can be swayed by reason. My opinion is that the taint of religion weakens all public institutions, and should be eliminated. I'm not motivated to make this my mission in life, but when someone else is arsed to do something, they have my sympathy and my respect for standing up for principle. What principle does the other side of the debate uphold except quaint notions of tradition?

The government and the courts rightly agreed that no child should have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school. So that one is a non starter in this debate. Personally I think required recitation of the Pledge or respect for the flag is not an establishment of any religion though and should not be a matter for the courts should they be school policy.

I was old enough to be aware when the phrase 'under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and it struck me as odd at the time. But even being intensely interested in all things Constitutional from public high school to state university and beyond--I considered going into law at one time actually--I could not make an argument that the phrase constituted an establishment of religion in any way even when mandatory. It did not attach "God" to any religion or anything religious. It was, to me, just a historical reference to the concept that recognizes that our unalienable rights are not inventions of government but natural, or in the vernacular of even the most areligious of the Founders, God given. It is the same concept in which I view the national motto "In God We Trust" that is on our federally issued money.

Likewise I could not lay my finger on any principle that would turn 'bias' or acknowledgment of any particular religion an establishment of religion. So long as no participation or contribution of any kind is required, so long as there is no benefit given to one that is not given to all and/or no penalty that is given to one that is no given to all, there is no establishment of religion. So likewise a copy of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" or a copy of the Ten Commandments or plaque engrave with the Code of Hammurabi etc. hung in the school classroom or in the county courthouse or the halls of Congress in no way require any participation or contribution by anybody and IMO are 100% constitutionally legal. Nor is singing traditional Christmas carols in a school CHRISTMAS program a violation of the establishment clause because music, especially the classics, is not an establishment of religion even if it was produced for religious reasons. But the government telling anybody of any faith or any belief how and where he/she is permitted to express that faith or belief is absolutely a violation of the First Amendment.

In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended.

"In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended."

We shall never be able to agree, or even profitably debate this matter. Whether you are incapable of understanding the reason why the figure of justice is blindfolded, or you choose to ignore the reason why because of religious fanaticism, the result is the same. If I am to be perfectly honest about it, I couldn't care less about your "hurt" religious feelings any more than you care about someone else's secular disgust. I find your argument about the notion of children being "shamed" by the absence of religion in their classrooms to be laughable.

I'll stick with Jefferson and Washington and JFK.

If the figure of justice is truly blindfolded, then there would be no prejudice against religious expression wherever it is so long as it required no response, participation, or obligation from any other. Right? And it would not matter whether that religious expression was in the halls of Congress or in the courtroom or in the classroom.

The difference between your argument and mine is that I allow you your secular disgust and do not require you not to express it. You apparently would deny me the right to express my religious belief in the classroom or other public venue. So in which case is the figure of justice blindfolded?

But we can agree on Washington, Jefferson, and JFK.

Start with JFK who said at his inaugural address: “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” In a speech in Boston he cited Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote: "unless religion is the first link, all is vain." On the campaign trail in Utah he said: "“we have become missionaries abroad of a wide range of doctrines – free enterprise, anti-Communism and pro-Americanism – but rarely ... religious liberty.”

As President, George Washington wrote a letter of reassurance to a Jewish congregation stating: "For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens…May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants."

Jefferson's point of view in a nutshell is this argument for the "Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom": "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error." We have no record whether he extended this to the public schools, but it is a near certainty that he would have.

The point is that religion once co-existed quite peacefully in the schools. In cases where it was forced on the kids, those were rightfully adjudicated as the public schools should never have license to do that. But neither should they have license to make the children's religious faith unwelcome in the schools or prohibit their constitutionally protected right to express it in non offensive or non disruptive ways. And too many, probably the vast majority, of public schools do just that out of fear of having to defend lawsuits initiated by such people as you.

JFK's personal beliefs regarding spiritual matters had nothing to do with whether or not he embraced the concept of the separation of church and state, which is the sole subject under discussion here. He did.

Now let's try to be grownups, shall we? The fact is that JFK said what he did for political purposes, to bend over backwards to prove to the voters of America that he was beholden to no foreign Pope or prince. Maybe he wasn't a simon-pure advocate for anything. maybe he was (gasp) a complex and contradictory human being, and not a figure out of myth and legend. What no one can say is that JFK was a complete hypocrite and believed in these principles out of political expediency alone. That Jefferson, who touted the importance of a "wall of separation between church and state", didn't really mean it.

The separation of church and state is a very new idea, given the many centuries we defined leadership as divine or divinely sanctioned. Achieving the kind of absolute separation that JFK cited as an ideal is not easily done. There is also no hurry. These things will play out in their own time and in their own way. I'm confident that this concept, which is a reflection of American ideals at their finest, will become evermore perfected. I am also confident that you, and others like you, will be threatened by this ever more perfected wall of separation, and will do all you can to undermine it.

Well, if I have to agree with you in order to be grown up, I guess we won't have much to discuss. And If you interpret my point of view as undermining separation of Church and State, we will have even less to discuss. But wishing you a good night.

 

[Agit8r]

"You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for God the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?"
-- Osama bin Laden; from 'Letter to America'

How can we trust people to fight such an movement if they hold essentially the same ideology? The plain truth is that we can't.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The government and the courts rightly agreed that no child should have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school. So that one is a non starter in this debate. Personally I think required recitation of the Pledge or respect for the flag is not an establishment of any religion though and should not be a matter for the courts should they be school policy.

I was old enough to be aware when the phrase 'under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and it struck me as odd at the time. But even being intensely interested in all things Constitutional from public high school to state university and beyond--I considered going into law at one time actually--I could not make an argument that the phrase constituted an establishment of religion in any way even when mandatory. It did not attach "God" to any religion or anything religious. It was, to me, just a historical reference to the concept that recognizes that our unalienable rights are not inventions of government but natural, or in the vernacular of even the most areligious of the Founders, God given. It is the same concept in which I view the national motto "In God We Trust" that is on our federally issued money.

Likewise I could not lay my finger on any principle that would turn 'bias' or acknowledgment of any particular religion an establishment of religion. So long as no participation or contribution of any kind is required, so long as there is no benefit given to one that is not given to all and/or no penalty that is given to one that is no given to all, there is no establishment of religion. So likewise a copy of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" or a copy of the Ten Commandments or plaque engrave with the Code of Hammurabi etc. hung in the school classroom or in the county courthouse or the halls of Congress in no way require any participation or contribution by anybody and IMO are 100% constitutionally legal. Nor is singing traditional Christmas carols in a school CHRISTMAS program a violation of the establishment clause because music, especially the classics, is not an establishment of religion even if it was produced for religious reasons. But the government telling anybody of any faith or any belief how and where he/she is permitted to express that faith or belief is absolutely a violation of the First Amendment.

In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended.

"In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended."

We shall never be able to agree, or even profitably debate this matter. Whether you are incapable of understanding the reason why the figure of justice is blindfolded, or you choose to ignore the reason why because of religious fanaticism, the result is the same. If I am to be perfectly honest about it, I couldn't care less about your "hurt" religious feelings any more than you care about someone else's secular disgust. I find your argument about the notion of children being "shamed" by the absence of religion in their classrooms to be laughable.

I'll stick with Jefferson and Washington and JFK.

If the figure of justice is truly blindfolded, then there would be no prejudice against religious expression wherever it is so long as it required no response, participation, or obligation from any other. Right? And it would not matter whether that religious expression was in the halls of Congress or in the courtroom or in the classroom.

The difference between your argument and mine is that I allow you your secular disgust and do not require you not to express it. You apparently would deny me the right to express my religious belief in the classroom or other public venue. So in which case is the figure of justice blindfolded?

But we can agree on Washington, Jefferson, and JFK.

Start with JFK who said at his inaugural address: “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” In a speech in Boston he cited Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote: "unless religion is the first link, all is vain." On the campaign trail in Utah he said: "“we have become missionaries abroad of a wide range of doctrines – free enterprise, anti-Communism and pro-Americanism – but rarely ... religious liberty.”

As President, George Washington wrote a letter of reassurance to a Jewish congregation stating: "For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens…May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants."

Jefferson's point of view in a nutshell is this argument for the "Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom": "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error." We have no record whether he extended this to the public schools, but it is a near certainty that he would have.

The point is that religion once co-existed quite peacefully in the schools. In cases where it was forced on the kids, those were rightfully adjudicated as the public schools should never have license to do that. But neither should they have license to make the children's religious faith unwelcome in the schools or prohibit their constitutionally protected right to express it in non offensive or non disruptive ways. And too many, probably the vast majority, of public schools do just that out of fear of having to defend lawsuits initiated by such people as you.

JFK's personal beliefs regarding spiritual matters had nothing to do with whether or not he embraced the concept of the separation of church and state, which is the sole subject under discussion here. He did.

Now let's try to be grownups, shall we? The fact is that JFK said what he did for political purposes, to bend over backwards to prove to the voters of America that he was beholden to no foreign Pope or prince. Maybe he wasn't a simon-pure advocate for anything. maybe he was (gasp) a complex and contradictory human being, and not a figure out of myth and legend. What no one can say is that JFK was a complete hypocrite and believed in these principles out of political expediency alone. That Jefferson, who touted the importance of a "wall of separation between church and state", didn't really mean it.

The separation of church and state is a very new idea, given the many centuries we defined leadership as divine or divinely sanctioned. Achieving the kind of absolute separation that JFK cited as an ideal is not easily done. There is also no hurry. These things will play out in their own time and in their own way. I'm confident that this concept, which is a reflection of American ideals at their finest, will become evermore perfected. I am also confident that you, and others like you, will be threatened by this ever more perfected wall of separation, and will do all you can to undermine it.

Well, if I have to agree with you in order to be grown up, I guess we won't have much to discuss. And If you interpret my point of view as undermining separation of Church and State, we will have even less to discuss. But wishing you a good night.

No, you don't have to agree with me, you just have to make sense, which so far you have not. I say that JFK and Jefferson were champions of the separation of church and state and you offer silly quotes about their personal views on religion, which contain not the slightest refutation of their belief in the importance of secular government. I've made my opinion clear, I stand with JFK. Jefferson's wall should be absolute. I can't say what you believe because I haven't read anything thoughtful from you so far. You bristle at the implication that you are undermining the separation of church and state, but you have so far failed to stand up for a single important precept of that doctrine. You can't even see the value of the blindfold on the modern symbol of justice.

 

[Foxfyre]

"In my opinion we do children far more harm by shaming them in matters of religion, by suggesting that their God or their religious beliefs are improper and bad things in their school and other activities than we do to anybody who might feel 'left out' should he not relate to whatever religious imagery or expressions are present. And if somebody is offended by a religious piece of art or expression well too bad. The Constitution does not give government authority to see that anybody is not offended."

We shall never be able to agree, or even profitably debate this matter. Whether you are incapable of understanding the reason why the figure of justice is blindfolded, or you choose to ignore the reason why because of religious fanaticism, the result is the same. If I am to be perfectly honest about it, I couldn't care less about your "hurt" religious feelings any more than you care about someone else's secular disgust. I find your argument about the notion of children being "shamed" by the absence of religion in their classrooms to be laughable.

I'll stick with Jefferson and Washington and JFK.

If the figure of justice is truly blindfolded, then there would be no prejudice against religious expression wherever it is so long as it required no response, participation, or obligation from any other. Right? And it would not matter whether that religious expression was in the halls of Congress or in the courtroom or in the classroom.

The difference between your argument and mine is that I allow you your secular disgust and do not require you not to express it. You apparently would deny me the right to express my religious belief in the classroom or other public venue. So in which case is the figure of justice blindfolded?

But we can agree on Washington, Jefferson, and JFK.

Start with JFK who said at his inaugural address: “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” In a speech in Boston he cited Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote: "unless religion is the first link, all is vain." On the campaign trail in Utah he said: "“we have become missionaries abroad of a wide range of doctrines – free enterprise, anti-Communism and pro-Americanism – but rarely ... religious liberty.”

As President, George Washington wrote a letter of reassurance to a Jewish congregation stating: "For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens…May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants."

Jefferson's point of view in a nutshell is this argument for the "Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom": "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error." We have no record whether he extended this to the public schools, but it is a near certainty that he would have.

The point is that religion once co-existed quite peacefully in the schools. In cases where it was forced on the kids, those were rightfully adjudicated as the public schools should never have license to do that. But neither should they have license to make the children's religious faith unwelcome in the schools or prohibit their constitutionally protected right to express it in non offensive or non disruptive ways. And too many, probably the vast majority, of public schools do just that out of fear of having to defend lawsuits initiated by such people as you.

JFK's personal beliefs regarding spiritual matters had nothing to do with whether or not he embraced the concept of the separation of church and state, which is the sole subject under discussion here. He did.

Now let's try to be grownups, shall we? The fact is that JFK said what he did for political purposes, to bend over backwards to prove to the voters of America that he was beholden to no foreign Pope or prince. Maybe he wasn't a simon-pure advocate for anything. maybe he was (gasp) a complex and contradictory human being, and not a figure out of myth and legend. What no one can say is that JFK was a complete hypocrite and believed in these principles out of political expediency alone. That Jefferson, who touted the importance of a "wall of separation between church and state", didn't really mean it.

The separation of church and state is a very new idea, given the many centuries we defined leadership as divine or divinely sanctioned. Achieving the kind of absolute separation that JFK cited as an ideal is not easily done. There is also no hurry. These things will play out in their own time and in their own way. I'm confident that this concept, which is a reflection of American ideals at their finest, will become evermore perfected. I am also confident that you, and others like you, will be threatened by this ever more perfected wall of separation, and will do all you can to undermine it.

Well, if I have to agree with you in order to be grown up, I guess we won't have much to discuss. And If you interpret my point of view as undermining separation of Church and State, we will have even less to discuss. But wishing you a good night.

No, you don't have to agree with me, you just have to make sense, which so far you have not. I say that JFK and Jefferson were champions of the separation of church and state and you offer silly quotes about their personal views on religion, which contain not the slightest refutation of their belief in the importance of secular government. I've made my opinion clear, I stand with JFK. Jefferson's wall should be absolute. I can't say what you believe because I haven't read anything thoughtful from you so far. You bristle at the implication that you are undermining the separation of church and state, but you have so far failed to stand up for a single important precept of that doctrine. You can't even see the value of the blindfold on the modern symbol of justice.

And I believe I value the blindfold on the modern symbol of justice as much as anybody because I don't apply that blindfold to the law only when it favors one side of an argument. And I believe that both Jefferson and JFK understood and strongly supported both sides of the establishment clause. Both understood what government establishment of religion was and strongly rejected that, as do I. And both understood what prohibiting the free exercise of of religion means, as do I. And both would have seen prohibiting all evidence of religion in the schools or other public venues as prohibiting the free exercise of religion as well as distorting history and savaging the rich culture of our country, as do I.

Now I can say that without feeling the need to personally insult you in any way. And if you think I make no sense, then oh well. I can't do much about that can I. But I will wish you a good day.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Student Who Mentioned Jesus During Her Graduation Speech Was Never Going to Go to Jail

Here's a pretty fair depiction of this issue, if policies on prayer and public school functions
DOES or DOES NOT cause or constitute "persecution" of Christian.

Here, the same case of a court order stating that students may express their own beliefs but cannot make references to "instructing or inviting OTHERS to pray" (and even stating that a presenter can speak to their beliefs through CONDUCT such as "kneeling to face Mecca, the wearing of a yarmulke or hijab or making the sign of the cross").

But Christians interpret this as persecution to put them under court orders that restrict the freedom of speech under threat of incarceration:

"they shall not otherwise deliver a message that would commonly be understood to be a prayer, nor use the word “prayer” unless it is used in the student’s expression of the student’s personal belief, as opposed to encouraging others who may not believe in the concept of prayer to join in and believe the same concept."

While their critics say this doesn't go too far, but just enforces their religious freedom as individuals, but not to abuse public institutions just as schools to instruct others to pray.

NOTE: The problem is the Christian faith DOES instruct believes to pray in AGREEMENT with others in Christ as part of the prayer process. So this does cross the line and involve others in prayer.

If the govt is going to enforce rules on this, those rules must be by AGREEMENT and cannot be imposed by govt onto people or else govt is no longer neutral. The PEOPLE must agree on policy first, then the govt can endorse that, but not vice versa. Govt should still NOT be in the business of dictating or regulating rituals that involve religion. The PEOPLE need to sort out and resolve those issues to keep religion free in private.