terpfan1980 terpfan1980

Lets start a conversation... Church and State and...

▼

Lets start a conversation... Church and State and...

(or maybe it'll be a small bonfire)

from JoeUser Forums
In the (link in bold) "Inside the Beltway" column in today's (11-24-2004) The Washington Times, is the following news item:
God forbid


This note just adds to many in issues where supposed Church and State separation have eroded away traditions that harmed no one while providing benefit to many.

A few years back, Firefighters in Montgomery County Maryland were barred by the local politicians from having Santa participate in "Christmas" celebrations that had been a tradition for years. A link: Santa March saves the day for Kensington Town, Montgomery County, Maryland!

There's been the recent history of decisions against display of the Ten Commandments in court rooms or any other public land/buildings. For example, google on "judge roy moore ten commandments". (Actually, the Supreme Court of the U.S. is finally taking a case or two -- actually two -- related to this issue, it should be interesting to see the results of the cases).

Before that, we've had decisions that have banned pre-meal prayers at State funded Military schools.

All of the above has been going on while a fairly sizable amount of the country sat back and got more frustrated and more angry at the decline in moral values (see the discussions posted about recent polls) and the efforts to eradicate morality out of our society as a whole (starting especially in schools, where instead, we have an effort to quickly implement sensitivity training).


With all of this said, we really do need to look at the changes that have been made in our society, at the efforts by groups like the ACLU (which is anything but Civil) to purge our system of moral values and eliminate any group that might possibly seen as not tolerating others through any practices that might be "exclusive" of any one or any thing.

Is it time to have our legislators and our government create laws that clear up the separation clause and bring it back to a point where freedom of religion isn't implemented as "freedom from religon" and where anything that may relate to a diety must be excised out of society? Do we need or want Congress to take up the issues? Or perhaps is it something that should come through the court system (specifically the Supreme Court) and which reaffirms that groups like the Boy Scouts have as much right to exist and use public facilities as do (for example) the Black Student Unions, the gay and lesbian activist groups, and others that must be tolerated and accepted because they are not exclusive and don't mention God or any diety in their charters?

Bring on the discussion, and really state your case as to what is right, and where should we go from here. Please remember though to be respectful of others, and not make personal attacks. (Attack the positions yes, the persons no). Thanks in advance.
politics
14,866 views 61 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

for backround info and ratification details youll need to follow the notes link.


 


Thanks!  It will be interesting reading.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top

cmon doc...accepted as and accepted almost as are two different things


 


You posted them, I did not.  I have not commented on them yet.

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
" Tell us where morality comes from if not from a beleif?"

Beleif is one of the many ingredients that can influence morality. Personal Opinion, Law, Others and divine inspiration are all sources of personal moral standards. It is safe to say that the moral standard of Christian from Massachusettes may have a whole different standard from one in Virginia. Just because people share a simalair beleif does not mean they hold people to the same moral standards. Th role of the government is to take the majority's opinion and force people to live up to this standard.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top

These are the issues that have driven many folks (like myself) crazy about our court system. Courts where judges have reached for reasons to justify decisions that should never have been made, and can't be justified without distorting our laws.

if you're interested and willing to take the time to evaluate for yourself the 'draft' versions of the first amendment as well as correspondence between the primary contributors as they worked on what eventually became the ratified consitution (as opposed to merely accepting a summary research paper from one advocacy or another--and there are plenty supporting both positions; some are very well done...others like the one you posted earlier contain glaring errors of fact), i think youll find the supreme court has historically done an impressive job overall of rendering decisions about this element of the first amendment in conformity with the founders' intentions. (it will take a lil work, but i believe i can find most of the source material online for you).

your statement (as quoted) indicates your belief the court has changed its approach to the separation of church and state when , in fact, thats not the case.   it may appear that way due to the fact that until relatively recently noone challenged religious images on display in government buildings or the inclusion of things like 'under god' in the pledge of allegience.   

please consider that last example a second.  the pledge does not date back to the founding of the country.  it was written by a baptist minister who was also a socialist (for which he would later be fired by his congregation) who used it as the centerpiece of the massachusetts school sysems' 1892 celebration of the 450th anniversary of columbus' discovery of the new world.  in the mid 1920s, the national flag conferece at the behest of both the dar and the american legion adapted his pledge--revising it slightly--for use at flag ceremonies.   it only became an 'official' patriotic oath in 1954--with the 'under god'--wording added to accomodate the knights of columbus.

 

 as originally written, the pledge was intended to indicate the speaker's affirmation not of god but the principles proclaimed by french revolutionaries..equality, liberty and fraternity. as approved by congress in 1954--remember this was also the mccarthy era--it became a public prayer as intended by the knights of columbus. 

i hope you can see a court decision to remove that phrase would NOT be activist revision of our founder's principles because the pledge itself was revised by a religious activist group and presented to the congress at a time when no lawmaker could have opposed it and been reelected.  it amazes me that so-called conservatives can so effectively and blindly misconstrue the facts and then claim to be defending the constitution while rallying around a recent (50 year old) public oath that actually erodes the first amendment

Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

Unfortunately, there are many liberals (most especially the ACLU) out there keeping these distortions from being corrected by using (abusing more like it) our court system, and by supporting like minded representatives for Governmental positions so that these "advances" in liberty won't be taken away (even though many would say these aren't advances at all, and are the complete antithesis of that).

like it or not, the aclu is not acting in its own interests but those of all citizens by preserving and insisting on the liberties guaranteed by the constitution.  in the case of the pledge of allegience, the aclu is not the special interest group activist attempting to pull an end run around the first amendment but the force defending the first amendment from that special interest groups' activism.

Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top

People have screamed about the Patriot Act and it's infringements on civil rights and civil liberties, but yet no one complains about the loss of the right to practice the faiths that we are guaranteed the right to be able to practice. What a twisted world and time we live in.

the reason no one is complaining is there has been no loss of the right to practice faith.  practicing it at taxpayer expense or insisting on a 'right' to display public symbols of faith in government buildings so as to imply state support or approval of a particular faith has never been a right guaranteed by the constitution. 

you surely agree that my right to extend my fist ends at the point where your right to not be punched in the face begins?    how does that differ from your right to practice your religion ends at the point where my right to have a non-religious government building or activity begins?

Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it. In this case, a most interesting conversation.

I've read through most of this thread a couple of times, now, and things are distilling themselves in my brain a bit. kingbee has been very persuasive in his arguments, not to mention tenacious. But on this I must disagree.

While Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between church and state" can, plucked out of the document and out of the context of its reason for existence, be interpreted by reasonable readers to mean he believed the first amendment was about freedom from religion, Jefferson's other writings and the cultural context of the exchange of letters seems to me to indicate otherwise.

Jefferson, like most of the Founders, considered himself a humble servant of God (or at least professed to be). Indeed, in the very Danbury letter, his salutation reads:
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

This was presumably an official document (even if not notarized ) written by a sitting President on official government stationery.

Why would we lend more credence, weight or authority to the phrase in question than to the salutation? They were both penned by the same hand in the same document and must be accorded the same weight and significance. The presence of both leads me to believe Jefferson's notion of religious freedom was freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

I also believe that Jefferson, and virtually all the Founders, were very overtly sensitive to fact that the various flavors of Christianity weren't the only religions being practiced in the Colonies at the time the DOI and Constitution were written. It's certainly strongly suggested by the use of phrases like "common Father and Creator." If they had had an overtly Christian government in mind, a very few changes in the Constitution would easily have established one, despite some of the comments later attributed to a number of them concerning the dependence of secular government on the religious/moral probity of the governed. So clearly they did not have a "Christian Nation" as an objective, rather they took overt steps to avoid just that, no matter the prostestations of the evangelical right today.

So, I believe his point had to do with religious freedom being protected by the Constitution - that Congress would make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. He was reassuring the Danbury congregation that the Constitution guaranteed their right to practice their religion as they saw fit.

It seems a deep stretch of logic to believe that the existence of that phrase, in that letter, requires that the Constitution be interpreted as prohibiting all religious references in all public or governmental activity. The Constitution clearly prohibits the establishment of the "Church of America" by the federal government, but I don't believe that Jefferson's phrase can be used as legitimate justification for not allowing Boy Scout Troops on miltary installations, for example, whether tax dollars, directly or indirectly, get somewhere near them or not. The fact that some tax revenues end up supporting or otherwise enabling organizations like the Boy Scouts does not constitute "an establishment of religion" nor does it "prohibit the free exercise thereof." You really have to twist your logic to get there, particularly when the Boy Scouts ask only for belief in "some" higher power (even nature will do). Since many in the miltary are active members of religious institutions, banning the Scouts could just as easily be seen as "prohibit[ing] the free exercise" of their religion, in violation of the Constitution.

The presence of the Ten Commandments on a monument paid for with tax dollars likewise does not constitute "an establishment of religion," certainly not in the sense the Founders were concerned about. I frankly think most of them would find a lot of this debate, and a lot of what the ACLU has done, downright silly. I don't really care whether the words "under God" remain in the Pledge of Allegiance (which is younger than me, by the way), but their presence in the Pledge doesn't constitute a clear and present danger to the Union, folks. Neither do the words "In God We Trust" on our currency.

Just so you understand, I'm a believer in "some higher power" but not a member of any organized religion (a recovering Methodist, now maintaining sobriety). However, my life will have been just as enriching if it turns out to have been a happy accident. So I'm covered, sort of.

The fact that certain religious beliefs happen to overlap or coincide with certain moral values of "value" does not mean we should be so stupid as to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
your right to practice your religion ends at the point where my right to have a non-religious government building or activity begins


This is where the argument breaks down, kingbee - there is no right in the Constitution "to have a non-religious government building or activity." Just ain't there unless you invent it, which appears to be the ACLU's mission.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #60 By: Daiwa - 11/26/2004 11:15:04 PM
your right to practice your religion ends at the point where my right to have a non-religious government building or activity begins


This is where the argument breaks down, kingbee - there is no right in the Constitution "to have a non-religious government building or activity." Just ain't there unless you invent it, which appears to be the ACLU's mission.

Cheers,
Daiwa



Right on, right on!!!