To all the separation of Church and State types: short lives

There are churchgoers who are for separation of church and state as well.

Reply #3 By: Citizen kingbee - 12/27/2004 3:09:57 PM the type of separation the founders very wisely advocated that protects all religions by keeping the government separate from any of them. i guess that wont hit home until yall have jehovahs witness teachers--david koresh sect adventists proselytising your children in schools.,

Again, show me where your possibilities preclude the issues I question above?

Should school children not be permitted to say the Pledge of Allegiance as currently constituted, including "under God"? Should school children not be permitted to sing or play any music that references any religion or religious symbol? ... to pray?

I don't want children being made into sheeps that follow the religion of the teacher, but I also don't want them told they can't sing Silent Night or Away in a Manger as part of a Christmas concert.

I don't want children told that they can't pray, or can't say the Pledge of Allegiance to their country's flag because it says "under god".

I don't want children told that they can't discuss where "in god we trust" came from, or where "endowed with certain inalienable rights" came from in our historical documents.

But, I just might start to line up with you if I'm told that my children are being taught a class in religious history, or being made to learn the Koran (however you wish to spell it), as I'd hope you'd line up with me if my children were being told they had to learn that "My two dads" or "My mommies girlfriend" are the only way of life in the country.

Reply By: whoman69    Posted: Monday, December 27, 2004 There are churchgoers who are for separation of church and state as well.

To which churches would you you say those people belong to? To which religions?

And further, when you say "are for separation of church and state as well" please elaborate on how and what separation?

Should school children not be permitted to say the Pledge of Allegiance as currently constituted, including "under God"?

Should school children not be permitted to sing or play any music that references any religion or religious symbol?

... to pray?

Seriously, I think it all comes down to what type of separation you are talking about.

the type of separation the founders very wisely advocated that protects all religions by keeping the government separate from any of them.   i guess that wont hit home until yall have jehovahs witness teachers--david koresh sect adventists  proselytising your children in schools.,

If I were a baptist, for example, then if we allow religion in the classroom, I would have to make sure that all the teachers were baptist in my child's school. Churches are for religion.

To which churches would you you say those people belong to? To which religions?

Isn't the head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State a minister or something? I think I saw him on CNN the other day.

Isn't the head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State a minister or something? I think I saw him on CNN the other day.

... again, minister or pastor of what church?

More information please. Never mind, information here (linked) on Rev. Barry W. Lynn, current head of Americans United...

Reply #3 By: kingbee - 12/27/2004 3:09:57 PM the type of separation the founders very wisely advocated that protects all religions by keeping the government separate from any of them

And what type would that be? Can you show me where you are guaranteed separation of church and state. And please do not quote the treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 was *dropped* from the treaty in 1803
Link

To which churches would you you say those people belong to? To which religions?

I am a conservative, churchgoing Christian, in favor of separation of church and state, and I know many who feel as I do. As for its place in the schools, well, I have separate feelings on the state of our public school system anyway, so it'd be too much of a thread hijack for me to insert my opinion on THAT side of things.

More info:

Not to disparage anyone's religious beliefs, but I must say that the Rev. Barry W. Lynn's church affiliation is through Church of Christ, which in and of itself is known in some circles to be somewhat of a cult in nature.

A web site related to Church of Christ is here (linked)

I don't know that I'd actually consider Mr. Lynn a preacher or other form of cleric. To me, he tends to fall into the same category as the guy that was on Sean Hannity's radio show debating Church and State issues with Rev. Jerry Falwell. That individual was a self ordained minister for a Texas church he and his friends had created called something like "The Church of Independent Thought".

I'm all for the separation of church and state, but as others have mentioned, there are different types of it. For example, to some, separation of church and state means forbidding students, who are not government employees, from expressing religious beliefs. To others, it means not having an official state religion. To some, it means removing the mentioning of God from the dollar bill while allowing the symbols to remain. It's actually a bit complicated.

I don't want children being made into sheeps that follow the religion of the teacher, but I also don't want them told they can't sing Silent Night or Away in a Manger as part of a Christmas concert.

If you're Jewish, do you want to be told your kid has to sing silent night? It goes both ways. Let them sing Frosty instead. They will probably sing silent night at church. We did.

If you're Jewish, do you want to be told your kid has to sing silent night? It goes both ways. Let them sing Frosty instead. They will probably sing silent night at church. We did.

Yes, actually I do (... want to be told your kid has to sing silent night), and in exchange and in the name of diversity, we can also have my children sing songs of Jewish tradition, color pictures that include Jewish holiday symbols, etc., so that my children will understand the Jewish faith and traditions, and so that your children may understand my childrens traditions and not mock them and ridicule them.

While I have my own opinions on these matters, please allow me to interject the following reminder (for reasons I will state): As I understand it, Separation of Church and State has always been just as much about protecting the church (from the state) as it has been about protecting the state (from the church).

I'm directing our attention to this matter because of my own experiences here in Canada. It appears we are a little further along (good or not) in our public dialogue about this founding principle, and yet the further we go the more it seems that we forget the simple understandings that we began with. By simple understandings, I am only referring to what I have laid out in my first paragraph - not to my own or anyone else's personal (religious) convictions.

Somehow, here in Canada, there seems to be a growing number who think (or act like they think) this founding principle will deliver politicians who have no religious convictions and believers who have no political opinions. I hope it is clear to everyone: there is nothing that can do that!

It really is sad that it has to be stated, but you'd be surprised were this conversation ends up ...

Keep plodding away everyone,

Delegate

I don't know that I'd actually consider Mr. Lynn a preacher or other form of cleric. To me, he tends to fall into the same category as the guy that was on Sean Hannity's radio show debating Church and State issues with Rev. Jerry Falwell. That individual was a self ordained minister for a Texas church he and his friends had created called something like "The Church of Independent Thought".

thanks for providing a great example of why government and religion need separation.  you dont think hes a cleric.  when he--or garner ted armstrong or bob tilden or david koresh--decides gets involved with local politics and starts teaching your kids songs and prayers, who is ultimately going to rule on the issue?   the courts?  if they rule against him, they the government is truly persecuting what may well be a legitimate religion.  if not the courts, then a council of religous scholars?  like the ones they have in iraq and saudi arabia?  

as to your original article, what kinda study about the effect of religion on health involving 550 people includes only 64 subjects who arent religious churchgoers? 

it occurs to me that this sentence (which isnt part of the article you quoted but your own belief) is most telling:

and State can just outlive the evolutionists, the atheists, and others and in about 40 years (give or take), can use their AARP voting block power to make church-going mandatory for everyone, since it would be in the best interests of society for everyone to live longer, healther, happier lives.

rather than depend on the vagaries of science (especially junk science) why not just kill us all off now?  what kinda conservative advocates empowering government to make church going or religious belief mandatory...especially in the 'best interests of society'?  

thank you for your honesty.  at least youve shown what's really going on here.  for a long while ive felt the people who are constantly searching out some new outrage against christianity in the us have been motivated by much more than protesting the incidents they cite.

consider how many of these weve seen here at ju alone in the past month.  all have been shown to be inflammatory exagrerationss (doi is BANNED is a good example).  at that point, the author drops out of the discussion and posts a new claim of outrageous insult to his or her faith.

yall really wont be satisfied until youre able to force the rest of us to believe as you do.

Kingbee - you're definitely mis-understanding what I'd like to see out of these articles, news items, issues, etc.

I'd like to see more understanding, and more tolerance. Not necessarily of the Jim Jones or David Koresh types, who most people with common sense would look at and describe in un-friendly terms, but of mainstream religions and mainstream traditions.

I seriously have no problem with having my kids learn about all religions, so they can make an informed decision on their own whether they want to be atheists, or whether they choose a religion for themselves. If they don't know about these religions though, and these religions can only be talked about in back rooms, in hushed tones, and can't be part of society at all, then how are my kids or myself supposed to know what religions are nothing more than cults, versus which are mainstream, well respected religions?

How are people to know the differences between Catholic, Methodist, Buddhist, Lutheran, Jewish, Greek Orthodox, Episcopal, Baptist, etc., if they aren't exposed to them at all?

A lot of history in this country is being lost and washed away in the name of political correctness, and we're going to be left not knowing how we got here, and what we've left behind. It's great that we're all part of a great big multicultural world, but what were those cultures, and why do some practices continue to get carried down, while others are tossed by the wayside.

That's my concern with these issues. And btw, I'm just as willing to do what commentator and Seattle area talk radio host Dave Ross (CBS Radio) suggested - if we're going to teach Intelligent Design in schools, then schools should also be able to have experiments that try to prove or disprove infomation in the bible. Let the science be proven to the kids in the classroom while acknowledging that for some people, the science may never be accepted because of their religious beliefs or convictions.

as to your original article, what kinda study about the effect of religion on health involving 550 people includes only 64 subjects who arent religious churchgoers?

as to that question you raise, Kingbee, the answer is that for most of the world, non-religious church-goers are a small part of the society. In much of "western civilization" religious rituals (including going to church at least some) is a regular occurence. Taking just over 10% of the sample as non-regular church-goers is probably about right given the number of different religions in the world, and the number of people that attend church at least occassionally.

I seriously have no problem with having my kids learn about all religions, so they can make an informed decision on their own whether they want to be atheists, or whether they choose a religion for themselves. If they don't know about these religions though, and these religions can only be talked about in back rooms, in hushed tones, and can't be part of society at all, then how are my kids or myself supposed to know what religions are nothing more than cults, versus which are mainstream, well respected religions?

nobody is forcing anyone to talk about religion or sectarian history in back rooms or hushed tones. any publication not owned or operated by the government using our tax dollars is free to publish as much or as little religious content as it wants.  same goes for the rest of the media.  you havent heard of anyone taking a newspaper or tv station to court to force them to avoid reporting on or about religions. 

public school teachers are not hired to teach religion unless it is part of a course specifically designated as such (like comparative religions) and it would be unrealistic to expect them to do so objectively unless they themselves were required to take specific instruction in doing that...and even then its too easily open to abuse.  if you think about the structure and regulations it would entail, i cant imagine you truly think it would be workable or even a good idea. 

how are my kids or myself supposed to know what religions are nothing more than cults, versus which are mainstream, well respected religions?

by letting some government administrator decide on a lesson plan that determines which are respectable and which are cults?  are you sure you want to go there?  what would be the criterion for each?  considering the flap that ensued about 20-25 years ago about the types and ways in which math should be taught--math being as close to a factual science as is possible--it would be nearly impossible (and definitely undesirable) to develop standards for determining cult from classic.

I'm just as willing to do what commentator and Seattle area talk radio host Dave Ross (CBS Radio) suggested - if we're going to teach Intelligent Design in schools, then schools should also be able to have experiments that try to prove or disprove infomation in the bible. Let the science be proven to the kids in the classroom while acknowledging that for some people, the science may never be accepted because of their religious beliefs or con

there are only so many hours in an educator's day and so many years of education available to most people.  in a world where technology and science are so crucial to both an individual's standard of living and a nation's economic future, how does it make sense to use even a portion trying to prove or disprove whether noah actually built an ark and filled it with 2 of every species.  or that the universe is older than 6000 years?  you may not have been alive when the russians successfully launched the first manmade object into earth orbit, but those who were will never forget the shock of discovering wed fallen that far behind soviet science.  two generations from today, the nation that expends the most time teaching kids real science is going to have a definite edge over the one thats still arguing about why there couldnt have been dinosaurs.

Taking just over 10% of the sample as non-regular church-goers is probably about right given the number of different religions in the world, and the number of people that attend church at least occassionally.

an experiment of the type you described would not factor in the percentage of people who attend church in the real world.   to obtain worthwhile results, youd need to have 2 groups of equal number with the only significant difference between each group being one attended church and was religious.  any other divergent factors--whether some smoke, drink, drive over the speed limit, sleep less than 8 hours, etc--would invalidate the results.

I'd like to see more understanding, and more tolerance

youll forgive me (i hope) if i find this a bit difficult to accept at face value.   

in this article, you make a claim that religion should be mandatory and imply it would be a good thing if those who dont agree were to die off sooner rather than later.

in another previous to this, you claimed the declaration of independence had been BANNED by a school in cupertino california.   there was a followup to your article which used the same misleading title.  the comments for both (and im not saying you should be credited or are culpable for the other article) provided considerable evidence that not only was the doi not banned,  the teacher in question was very likely attempting to preach to rather than teach his students.  

here's further proof the doi wasnt/isnt banned.  its a pic of the doi hanging in that schools library as posted on the school's parents organization website. 

 

by using the most inflammatory headline possible without qualifying it as possibly inaccurate, youre not furthering tolerance.

in this article, you make a claim that religion should be mandatory and imply it would be a good thing if those who dont agree were to die off sooner rather than later.

Where have I claimed it (religion) should be mandatory? I've stated that I don't think it should be run out of the schools, and that it wouldn't be bad for kids to sing songs like Silent Night while also including music from other faiths and even the secular area (Rudolph, Santa Claus is coming to town, etc.). I've said it's not a bad thing that kids should be permitted to draw religious symbols, or to talk about religion with a teacher -- heaven forbid, and careful that I don't get shhhhhh'ushed here -- even present and perhaps participating in the discussion to help keep it balanced and keep it from being strictly Christian dominated, or strictly Jewish dominated, etc.

Again, I have tolerance, and faith too perhaps, that in the vast majority of cases the teachers aren't there to convert kids between religions, and that if they should happen to even -- again, heaven forbid -- allow religious discussion to take place in their class rooms, that it's not going to result in someone being permanently corrupted, have their souls eternally damned, or in some other way see their world drastically changed.

Stop mis-characterizing and mis-understanding. It looks bad on you.

And the implication you mention may or may not fit, it was certainly there if you wanted to read it that way, but like the headline, it was more meant to titalize and drawn in comments and discussion.

Yes, actually I do (... want to be told your kid has to sing silent night)

Ok, before Kingbee does an I told you so here, apologies for my poor wording in response to the question that I was answering with the statement above.

I don't want anything to be mandatory, but I just as much don't want it mandated out of the system either. I want balance, and it's clearly not there currently (and too far to the left in my view).

You seem to be missing the point.
Separation of church and state does NOT mean that the state is banning religion. It means simply that-- that they are separate. The government does not endorse, nor does it interfere with, religion. If you want your kids to pray, sing "Silent Night", scream from the hilltops that we are one nation under God, or anything like that, then WONDERFUL! You go right on ahead. But we're not going to have the GOVERNMENT force them to do so. Is going a few hours a day without someone mentioning God really going to hurt the kids? No. School is a time for educating children. By teaching them math, accepted science, how to read and write, etc. When they get home, they can pray. They can pray before school. Heck, they can even pray DURING school in their heads, if they really feel the need to. And if your kids have a special time of day when their religion says they HAVE to leave and pray, they can! The state can't interfere with the religion, so you can pull your kids out of school every day and take them to church, temple, wherever, if you feel the need to. And what, I ask you, is wrong with that? Did Jesus HIMSELF not tell everyone to pray when alone? And not out in the street, making a big deal out of it? Seems to me that, no matter which way you look at it, separation of church and state is good for both church AND state.

The government does not endorse, nor does it interfere with, religion

You were fine until that statement. The Government, thanks to the ACLU and others, has interfered in religion. It prevents any free exercise there of during school hours, on government (tax payer funded) properties, and in any number of other ways.

Your statement would be fine, but the government does interfere, and that's the problem. Again, the mere mention of something related to religion garners a lawsuit to stifle freedom of speech related to it. That is interference, and is a result of a complete and total mis-understanding of the meaning of the bill of rights.