Separation of church and state?

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2608977
I might be wrong on this, but I am fairly certain I have read that many of the founding fathers were Diests (Franklin, Jefferson and Madison) and possibily more.
You are wrong. Two people were not christian, and does not constitute many. Here is a list of all the founding fathers.
* John Adams
* Samuel Adams
* Josiah Bartlett
* Carter Braxton
* Charles Carroll
* Samuel Chase
* Abraham Clark
* George Clymer
* William Ellery
* William Floyd
* Benjamin Franklin
* Elbridge Gerry
* Button Gwinnett
* Lyman Hall
* John Hancock
* Benjamin Harrison
* John Hart
* Joseph Hewes
* Thomas Heyward, Jr.
* William Hooper
* Stephen Hopkins
* Francis Hopkinson
* Samuel Huntington
* Thomas Jefferson
* Francis Lightfoot Lee
* Richard Henry Lee
* Francis Lewis
* Philip Livingston
* Thomas Lynch, Jr.
* Thomas McKean
* Arthur Middleton
* Lewis Morris
* Robert Morris
* John Morton
* Thomas Nelson, Jr.
* William Paca
* Robert Treat Paine
* John Penn
* George Read
* Caesar Rodney
* George Ross
* Benjamin Rush
* Edward Rutledge
* Roger Sherman
* James Smith
* Richard Stockton
* Thomas Stone
* George Taylor
* Matthew Thornton
* George Walton
* William Whipple
* William Williams
* James Wilson
* John Witherspoon
* Oliver Wolcott
* George Wythe

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2608992
No...a nativity scene on your front lawn is completely and 100% constitutional. Your nativity scene in my front yard, or one that I own through my government, is a violation of the constitution.
The Supreme Court (among others) disagrees with you

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2609163
The Supreme Court (among others) disagrees with you
The Supreme Court has ruled that religious displays on public property are unconstitutional. The only way they are allowed in, according to the Supreme Court and various Federal Courts, is if they contain secular figures, or if the municipality opens the public space to all religions - that is, the government loses all ability to control what is placed on the property, including satanists, Pastafarians, etc. I would rather have no displays!

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2609649
The Supreme Court has ruled that religious displays on public property are unconstitutional. The only way they are allowed in, according to the Supreme Court and various Federal Courts, is if they contain secular figures, or if the municipality opens the public space to all religions - that is, the government loses all ability to control what is placed on the property, including satanists, Pastafarians, etc. I would rather have no displays!
"The Supreme Court has ruled that religious displays on public property are unconstitutional."
"The only way they are allowed in, according to the Supreme Court and various Federal Courts, is if they contain secular figures, or if the municipality opens the public space to all religions"
You are kinda arguing against yourself here. The court ruled one relegion can't be favored over another by the government . That was the only intent of the founders. The concept of the seperation isn't even in the constitution, it was a supreme court ruling that is among the most mis interpreted.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2609750
"The Supreme Court has ruled that religious displays on public property are unconstitutional."
"The only way they are allowed in, according to the Supreme Court and various Federal Courts, is if they contain secular figures, or if the municipality opens the public space to all religions"
You are kinda arguing against yourself here. The court ruled one relegion can't be favored over another by the government . That was the only intent of the founders. The concept of the seperation isn't even in the constitution, it was a supreme court ruling that is among the most mis interpreted.
It seems to me that the best way for the government not to favor one religion over another is to stay out of the religion business entirely - hence the interpretation of separation of church and state. The moment you fuse religion with the state you are on a slippery slope that leads to theocracy (for example, Iran). How else would you propose that there not be a separation of church and state and yet have a completely neutral state vis-a-vis religion.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2609778
It seems to me that the best way for the government not to favor one religion over another is to stay out of the religion business entirely - hence the interpretation of separation of church and state. The moment you fuse religion with the state you are on a slippery slope that leads to theocracy (for example, Iran). How else would you propose that there not be a separation of church and state and yet have a completely neutral state vis-a-vis religion.
All may be true, however, the Constitution says none of that...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2609750
"The Supreme Court has ruled that religious displays on public property are unconstitutional."
"The only way they are allowed in, according to the Supreme Court and various Federal Courts, is if they contain secular figures, or if the municipality opens the public space to all religions"
You are kinda arguing against yourself here. The court ruled one relegion can't be favored over another by the government . That was the only intent of the founders. The concept of the seperation isn't even in the constitution, it was a supreme court ruling that is among the most mis interpreted.

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2609778
It seems to me that the best way for the government not to favor one religion over another is to stay out of the religion business entirely - hence the interpretation of separation of church and state. The moment you fuse religion with the state you are on a slippery slope that leads to theocracy (for example, Iran). How else would you propose that there not be a separation of church and state and yet have a completely neutral state vis-a-vis religion.
That is an excellent argument.
However impractical, these images are part of American culture, not just religious symbols, just like the pledge of allegence and in god we trust is still printed on our currency. Using your logic these innocuous symbols should also be removed from our society. Removing symbols that represent the views of a majority of American symbols for the handful of people groups is not the intent of the passage of the constitution. Displaying these symbols do not represent an endorsement of the religion as a whole.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2609787
All may be true, however, the Constitution says none of that...
All is true, and it is a legitimate interpretation of the constitution. How would you feel if your town fathers erected a satanist's altar? Believe me, many non-Christians regard Christmas creche's as that exact equivalent, and feel that the government has no business erecting either.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2609802
That is an excellent argument.
However impractical, these images are part of American culture, not just religious symbols, just like the pledge of allegence and in god we trust is still printed on our currency. Using your logic these innocuous symbols should also be removed from our society. Removing symbols that represent the views of a majority of American symbols for the handful of people groups is not the intent of the passage of the constitution. Displaying these symbols do not represent an endorsement of the religion as a whole.
I have no doubt that at some point in time someone will complain about those symbols, too, and they might have a good argument for the Supreme Court. All of that said, and all of the above, as a non-Christian I still enjoy the Christmas season as part of my American culture. I just don't want the government to impose this on me by law or fiat as a religious event. I can enjoy it as a cultural thing, and others can celebrate the religious significance - but not a political event, please!

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2609987
All is true, and it is a legitimate interpretation of the constitution. How would you feel if your town fathers erected a satanist's altar? Believe me, many non-Christians regard Christmas creche's as that exact equivalent, and feel that the government has no business erecting either.
according to the Constitution, erecting a satanist altar would be ok too. that's why is probably better just not to have any thing regarding religion on federal grounds. but it still would not be unconstitutional. the Constitution is a document that is written in pretty clear terms. the Supreme Court rulings have been a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2609994
I have no doubt that at some point in time someone will complain about those symbols, too, and they might have a good argument for the Supreme Court. All of that said, and all of the above, as a non-Christian I still enjoy the Christmas season as part of my American culture. I just don't want the government to impose this on me by law or fiat as a religious event. I can enjoy it as a cultural thing, and others can celebrate the religious significance - but not a political event, please!
To take this a step further, I would go as far as to say when the founding fathers wrote the declaration of Independence refered to the "creator" who endowed us with unalienable rights, they were refered to God in the judeo-christian sense. Should we remove that reference to God? I can understand not wanting to be bombarded by belligerent over the top apostilization. But things like the ten commandments, do not kill, steal? Is hardly an instrusive belief structure.

 

[reefraff]

Like many others I am fed up with the anti-Christian movement but I don't want the government to have the ability to discriminate against or promote any religion.
If a city can demonstrate too many groups are demanding the right to set up displays I would have no issue with them banning them all. What I do take issue with is having long standing traditions snuffed out because some malcontent with no life decides their mission is to make everyone else as miserable as they are.

 

[oscardeuce]

Geridoc,
Looking at the 2 parts of the "establishment clause":
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Congress, cannot say we are all religion x, nor can they PROHIBIT "free exercise" of religion X. So, a Satanic display would be allowed under the "free exercise" clause. It may not be moral or right, but cannot be prohibitied ( read outlawed). The ACLU seem to be all over the first part of the establishment clause, and conviniently forgetting the second part.
With the current antichristian movement, and trend toward socialism, I'd argue congress is establishing nonreligion as the official religion.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2610507
Geridoc,
Looking at the 2 parts of the "establishment clause":
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Congress, cannot say we are all religion x, nor can they PROHIBIT "free exercise" of religion X. So, a Satanic display would be allowed under the "free exercise" clause. It may not be moral or right, but cannot be prohibitied ( read outlawed). The ACLU seem to be all over the first part of the establishment clause, and conviniently forgetting the second part.
With the current antichristian movement, and trend toward socialism, I'd argue congress is establishing nonreligion as the official religion.
You are right - Congress cannot prohibit free exercise of religion. All that that means is that Pastor Wright can say what he wants to say in his Church, no matter how distasteful his utterances are to many of us. However, Congress cannot make Pastor Wright's utterances the law of the land, which means that Congress cannot support Wright, nor any other religious leader, since that would violate the first part of the establishment clause. The second part of the clause seems to take care of itself pretty well in Wright's case - he can say what he wants, and if our esteemed Congress passed a law prohibiting it, I would be one of the first in line at the ACLU's office to bring suit, and I have no doubt that the ACLU would take the case.
I guess I feel strongly about this because I remember being in 5th and 6th grades and being forced to read aloud from the New Testament to my class in public school. The NT is not my religious tradition, and even then I knew that this was a wrong thing for a school to do. My family felt strongly about their religious traditions, so they sent me to an after school program where I learned about my religion. We understood that it wasn't the school's job to teach this.
As for the Satanic display - by following the Constitution, Satanic displays ARE prohibited on public property. Also, by following the Constitution, Satanic displays ARE NOT prohibited in other locations. Sounds like a good solution to me.

 

[nacl freak]

Freedom from tyranny, religious persecution, taxation without representation are the basics of this country. People have fought these things since the beggining of civilization. There are always shifts in power, changes and interpretations of man's laws. Man's law changes with the wind and the shifting of powers. There is a truth that never changes. It has been a guide book. Teaching love, patience ,tolerance, forgiveness. Does "do unto others" ring a bell?

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2610553
As for the Satanic display - by following the Constitution, Satanic displays ARE prohibited on public property. Also, by following the Constitution, Satanic displays ARE NOT prohibited in other locations. Sounds like a good solution to me.

They cannot establish or prohibit.
Yes, Rev. Wright can say whatever he wants. It is up to us to determine the meaning and content behind his words, and the effect of his words on those who listen to and follow him.
IMHO, the ACLU is quite narrow in their thinking. They seem to be all over certain parts of he Constitution, and ignore the oher parts ( the 2nd Ammendment for example). But then again, the ACLU was founded by a communist.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by nacl freak
http:///forum/post/2610556
Freedom from tyranny, religious persecution, taxation without representation are the basics of this country. People have fought these things since the beggining of civilization. There are always shifts in power, changes and interpretations of man's laws. Man's law changes with the wind and the shifting of powers. There is a truth that never changes. It has been a guide book. Teaching love, patience ,tolerance, forgiveness. Does "do unto others" ring a bell?
Wow -I'm glad to see that someone agrees with me. I was beginning to think that I was all alone in defending the constitution.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2610564
Yes, Rev. Wright can say whatever he wants. It is up to us to determine the meaning and content behind his words, and the effect of his words on those who listen to and follow him.
I couldn't agree more. That's what most people forget about several of the guaranteed freedoms in the Constitution - you are free to say or pray, etc. however you want, but nobody has to listen. Or if they do, they are just as free to disagree. We bicker about the Constitution endlessly in this country (look at this thread, for example). Yet, it is a remarkable blueprint for a government's contract with it's people.

 

[nacl freak]

I believe the Constitution was meant as a guideline, not to be interpreted as written in stone. It seems to me, anyone can take any statement and debate 100 or more different interpretations. The problem comes with intolerance at differing opinions. Although I love and honor my country, it's constitution and the people, I use another standard to gauge my opinions and actions. For I believe actions do speak louder than words.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by nacl freak
http:///forum/post/2610598
I believe the Constitution was meant as a guideline, not to be interpreted as written in stone. It seems to me, anyone can take any statement and debate 100 or more different interpretations. The problem comes with intolerance at differing opinions. Although I love and honor my country, it's constitution and the people, I use another standard to gauge my opinions and actions. For I believe actions do speak louder than words.
No, the Constitution is the Cornerstone of our country and gov't. It is written in stone. It it difficult, almost impossible to change for a reason. It is not meant to change with the times. Free speech is free speech, "shall not be infringed" means exactly that. It is not a "living document". It is meant to control and limit the gov't while giving control and liberty to the people.