The first amendment has nothing to say about a "Separation of Church and State". I posted it above, the relevant portion is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
On the day he approved Congress' putting the words "under God" into the Pledge, then-president Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
<strong>This will be appealed to the Supreme Court and the appeal will win. There is no way the current Supreme Court will uphold this. They have generally showed no regard at all for seperation of church and state and I doubt that they would change on an issue which has already become a cause celebre among the conservative community.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference is "God" is a fairly ambiguous term. It doesn't always reflect to a person. "God" could be an inanimate object (ie "money is MY God")
For some crackpot Atheist to tell me that i'm "forcing" my religion on he/she is insane. Religious freedom to me means the ability for ANY person to praise their creator or God without impunity. Look at what we have now. Schools will not permit the mention of God or Jesus or any religous dialect...is that not persecution???
Second.. if you have not lived in the REAL world yet. If you are a student being spoon fed your knowledge from a Professor then you have no experience to pool from. I thought the Pledge of Allegiance was stupid back in school. Kids always feel their parents are talking babble to them...but the fact is when you hit your late 20's you "remember" these words and they NOW make sense. You realize why we say it and what your parents were attempting say.
The Men of the US are weaker than ever. More and more I have a hard time differentiating Men from Women because I'm surrounded by sniveling wimps everywhere. They won't fight for their country..they won't respect authority they have no moral convictions..."if I like it then screw everyone else". Think about this....had many Americans not died in WWII fighting for the US do you think you'd be sitting in front of a computer whining about when the Powermac G5 is coming?
Everything you have is good enough that someone out there wants to take it. Schools have emasculated men long enough. Do you really think you will stand a chance against a Islamic Fanatic who is not only willing but Relishes the opportunity to kill you or your children?
<strong>The first amendment has nothing to say about a "Separation of Church and State". I posted it above, the relevant portion is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
On the day he approved Congress' putting the words "under God" into the Pledge, then-president Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
You know, I generally don't agree with you Groverat, but I do completely in this instance. An end to the country? Please, it seems to me that we're just reverting back to the original design. Further, if "god" was "de minimus" as the Gov't claims, why don't they just drop it? Well, b/c its not de minimus. Why are people so afraid of people who believe differently than they do? Nothing is stopping the pledge reciters from reciting it at home (or church or where ever). Why are public institutions needed as an additional forum? They're only needed if you want to establish an orthodoxy of thought - you've got a captive audience.
BTW, its been illegal to compel children or anyone else for that matter to recite the pledge of allegiance. See Barnette v. WV. I believe that case came out in the early to mid 50's.
The only way the Supreme Court will reverse this is 1) if it gets there and 2) if they label it ceremonial deism. What will probably happen is the 9th Cir (not, as some of you believe, a California court. It is a federal court whose jurisdiction covers Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada, and Hawai'i. They do hear argument in California as well as the other states) will grant rehearing en banc and reverse. That will be the end of that b/c the Supremes will duck it and refuse to grant cert.
[quote]The difference is "God" is a fairly ambiguous term. It doesn't always reflect to a person. "God" could be an inanimate object (ie "money is MY God")<hr></blockquote>
Errr... no.
First off, "God" is the god outlined in the Bible.
You'll notice it doesn't say, "one nation, under a god", but "one nation, under God".
It's not ambiguous at all, that's the reason we have so much outrage about "Godless liberals" and "atheists".
It's the Christian God, stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.
And that doesn't even matter! If it said "Allah/Vishnu/Zeus/Satan/Brahman/Krishna" it would matter, because it's establishment of religion, plain and simple.
It is pledging allegiance to a nation (fine) and in that statement you have you relenting submission to a Christian god. Sorry, but that's a no-no.
[quote]For some crackpot Atheist to tell me that i'm "forcing" my religion on he/she is insane.<hr></blockquote>
Because... only a crackpot athiest would see the obvious implications.
[quote]Religious freedom to me means the ability for ANY person to praise their creator or God without impunity.<hr></blockquote>
You can. That is your right. Overturning the 1954 act putting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance has NOTHING to do with you being able worship your God.
[quote]Look at what we have now. Schools will not permit the mention of God or Jesus or any religous dialect...is that not persecution???<hr></blockquote>
Since when were you not allowed to talk about God in school?
I talked about God all the time in school, never got in trouble for it.
There are few things Christians love more than thinking they are being oppressed.
[quote]Second.. if you have not lived in the REAL world yet. If you are a student being spoon fed your knowledge from a Professor then you have no experience to pool from. I thought the Pledge of Allegiance was stupid back in school. Kids always feel their parents are talking babble to them...but the fact is when you hit your late 20's you "remember" these words and they NOW make sense. You realize why we say it and what your parents were attempting say.<hr></blockquote>
I am confused by this paragraph, what does it mean?
[quote]The Men of the US are weaker than ever. More and more I have a hard time differentiating Men from Women because I'm surrounded by sniveling wimps everywhere. They won't fight for their country..they won't respect authority they have no moral convictions..."if I like it then screw everyone else". Think about this....had many Americans not died in WWII fighting for the US do you think you'd be sitting in front of a computer whining about when the Powermac G5 is coming?<hr></blockquote>
You'd make a great op-ed columnist for FoxNews or the National Review.
[quote]Everything you have is good enough that someone out there wants to take it. Schools have emasculated men long enough. Do you really think you will stand a chance against a Islamic Fanatic who is not only willing but Relishes the opportunity to kill you or your children?<hr></blockquote>
Pushing ones religion underground IS persecution. Seperation of Church and State is not a doctrine. The Establishment Clause ensures that the Gov cannot mandate a particular religion and that Muslims Christians, Jews, Atheists and whoever can peacefully worship without persecution. What happens when a person praises God in school...they're hushed. That sounds like persecution to me. It's not just a couple of words because that will snowball into drives to take "in God we trust" and other references to religious wordings.
Atheists are a small minority and it is the duty of our Gov to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority when Liberties are being taken. Is it a Liberty to be free from the influences of Religion....I think not.
"Those who put "In God We Trust" on our money, who put "under God" into our Pledge of Allegiance talk about "religious freedom." I'm not sure I know what "religious freedom" means, except that it allows the majority, the Christians, to trample the rights of us who think the Christian claim is falsehood, who think the Christian concept of morality is based mainly on the greed of the Christians."
- Cliff Walker, Positive Atheism magazine
Couldn't have said it better myself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>TELL me about it! I gotta live with these hammerheads!
Quick, somebody throw me a life jacket!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm on it Scates...meanwhile you can stand on Snof's head until we get there with the flotation devices. What a righteous SF dude he is...we should be impressed that he left out the words "under God" when he was a kid. So forward-thinking and politically correct!
So much for the seperation of church and state.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a completely different legal issue, although it has passing similarities b/c the government is involved. However, this does NOT involve state sponsored speech also involving a captive audience. This is a major distinction.
It will be interesting to see how people react to the fact that their money could now fund a child's education through a Hebrew, Christian, Catholic, or Muslim school.
<strong>"Those who put "In God We Trust" on our money, who put "under God" into our Pledge of Allegiance talk about "religious freedom." I'm not sure I know what "religious freedom" means, except that it allows the majority, the Christians, to trample the rights of us who think the Christian claim is falsehood, who think the Christian concept of morality is based mainly on the greed of the Christians."
- Cliff Walker, Positive Atheism magazine
Couldn't have said it better myself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? What "Rights" have Christians taken from you?
Really? What "Rights" have Christians taken from you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The same right that Christians claim has been taken from them by not being allowed to have the state shove Christian beliefs down everybody's throat. Freedom of Religion. Or in this case, Freedom FROM religion. Take off your blinders and think critically, you might see it. I understand that you think "god" in the pledge has no religious content, but the simple fact of the hew and cry coming from religious groups and the Eisenhower statement Groverat quoted belie that. I really think you ought to try to imagine what it would be like to be surrounded by people who were pledging allegiance to "one Nation, under Satan, indivisible...etc" I think that God there is clearly normative and the SOLE purpose for reciting the pledge in schools is to inculcate children in the value set expressed therein. I'm sure you don't think that they are trying to teach children that "the word god has no normative value with respect to religion, its only there to signify christianity's significance in our Country." Do you? I think that's just a post-hoc crass rationalization by the DOJ that tries to hide the real motive behind the case.
Finally, you all may think that this is trivial and stupid and pc etc, but I think it is a wonderful example of trying to prevent a "death by a thousand cuts." BTW, there is a real difference b/w "politically correct" and "legally correct" and just "correct." I think you might try to distinguish among them b/4 you resort to that somewhat toothless epithet.
<strong>It will be interesting to see how people react to the fact that their money could now fund a child's education through a Hebrew, Christian, Catholic, or Muslim school.
Why should they be mad? Homeowner pay taxes and Levies for local public schools even in they send their children to Private schools.
Just what does the Establishment Clause say? I don't believe it says that our Govt has to castigate the rights of citizens who wish to exercise their religious freedom. That freedom extends to everyone..but here we have a prevailing attitude that religion in schools is wrong. How'd that happen?
[quote]. Freedom of Religion. Or in this case, Freedom FROM religion. Take off your blinders and think critically, you might see it. I understand that you think "god" in the pledge has no religious content, <hr></blockquote>
Total Bullshit! Our Country was FOUNDED on Judao-Christian beliefs and for you to say that the masses are running from Religion is assinine. You have the right to choose and support your religion or no religion but you do not have the right to subvert our beliefs.
Total Bullshit! Our Country was FOUNDED on Judao-Christian beliefs and for you to say that the masses are running from Religion is assinine. You have the right to choose and support your religion or no religion but you do not have the right to subvert our beliefs.
Thoth where do your rights come from?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, our country was founded on a document that specifically excludes religious orthodoxy through arms of the state. You'll recall that the "founders" (the fathers and mothers of the founders actually) were fleeing religious persectution. Its a simple concept really. It does not matter that our founders were, by and large, Christians of some stripe (note that "Christianity" is not monolithic) - that fact does not mean that we have to all be Christians, or that we should tolerate the state sponsorship of religious orthodoxy, no matter how small the actual encroachment appears to the elightened. I don't think assinine is a fair characterization of my argument. Furthermore, I didn't say that the masses were running from religion, I said that the "right" that Christians (not all Christains mind you) are trampling on is that same one they seek to hide behind when they come up with plans to put religions in state institutions (sometimes with "secular" justifications like "history" and the like).
Finally, you hit the nail on the head in your last sentence. However, I don't believe that trying to protect people from subversion of their beliefs by preventing the state sponsorship of a religious message subverts YOUR beliefs BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO USE ARMS OF THE STATE TO SPONSOR YOUR RELIGION. Got it? Worship where you want, even in school, just don't let the legislature prescribe a religious ritual in a public institution. Its not that hard. Nothing in what I wrote before suggested the legal power to subvert anyone's beliefs. Read it again if you have to.
My right to be free from the tyranny of a state established religion is very clearly stated in the 1st Amendment. I'd suggest you read the document and caselaw on establishment of religion and coerced speech before you make arguments from personal beliefs - this a legal, NOT a moral issue. You may wish to quibble with that characterization, but I can't help that.
[quote]but here we have a prevailing attitude that religion in schools is wrong. How'd that happen?<hr></blockquote>
Do you want to know why it happened? It's because some people don't believe in a God. It's because some people believe in different Gods.
For example: How fair is it for a Jewish child to go to a public school and sing Christmas carols about Jesus the savior? In that same light, how would you like it if your child was made to do something from another religion?
Also, I have a REAL PROBLEM in having to pay for other people's kids to go to private schools. It's their choice whether they go to public schools or not, and if they choose to send them to a private, religious school, then they should have to pay for it. This mainly benefits the rich and private schools over anyone else, as private schools will just raise tuition and make more money to make the school 'better' for the rich students attending.
Public schools are WAY underfunded already, and we're supposed to take money AWAY from them to pay for private schools which actually get endowments? PLEASE! Teachers in public schools are completely underpaid and do not have the proper materials to teach our children, and we're taking money away from them. Totally ridiculous and backwards.
I found this on another site:
[quote]The Treaty of Tripoli (1797) contained the statement that "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
The treaty was ratified unanimously by the Senate in the 339th recorded vote of that body following the founding of the Republic. It was only the THIRD time a measure passed unanimously.
<hr></blockquote>
I believe that religion needs to stay out of schools, as there is always someone 'offended' by another's religion, whether it be not worshipping the same God, or not following a religion at all, the only way to keep things as calm as possible is to leave religions out of schools and the government as much as possible. People can worship, etc. on their own time, outside of the government buildings and schools.
[quote]Pushing ones religion underground IS persecution. Seperation of Church and State is not a doctrine. The Establishment Clause ensures that the Gov cannot mandate a particular religion and that Muslims Christians, Jews, Atheists and whoever can peacefully worship without persecution.<hr></blockquote>
The establishment clause mandates that the .gov cannot establish any religion. Having the pledge to the nation include a pledge to subject yourself to the Christian god is establishment of religion.
Open -> shut.
"under God" is a no-no. It was let go for a long time but the bluff has been called, time to take it out and move on with our lives.
[quote]What happens when a person praises God in school...they're hushed.<hr></blockquote>
That is, to put it frankly, complete and total bullshit.
You can't stand up in class testifying about Jesus, yeah, but you can't stand up in the middle of class and blather on about anything.
Do you realize that by claiming oppression you are whining just as you accuse the "crackpot athiests" of whining?
[quote]Is it a Liberty to be free from the influences of Religion....I think not.<hr></blockquote>
Is it a liberty to be free from the influences of religion set forth by the government?... I think so.
Comments
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
On the day he approved Congress' putting the words "under God" into the Pledge, then-president Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
Ooops! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>This will be appealed to the Supreme Court and the appeal will win. There is no way the current Supreme Court will uphold this. They have generally showed no regard at all for seperation of church and state and I doubt that they would change on an issue which has already become a cause celebre among the conservative community.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? Ever read Hopwood?
thoth
<strong>Separation of Church and State. Not Separation of church and State. Church and State. There's a reason for that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah. Its called 1781 drafting style. Most of the Nouns in the Constitution are capitalized.
Thoth
For some crackpot Atheist to tell me that i'm "forcing" my religion on he/she is insane. Religious freedom to me means the ability for ANY person to praise their creator or God without impunity. Look at what we have now. Schools will not permit the mention of God or Jesus or any religous dialect...is that not persecution???
Second.. if you have not lived in the REAL world yet. If you are a student being spoon fed your knowledge from a Professor then you have no experience to pool from. I thought the Pledge of Allegiance was stupid back in school. Kids always feel their parents are talking babble to them...but the fact is when you hit your late 20's you "remember" these words and they NOW make sense. You realize why we say it and what your parents were attempting say.
The Men of the US are weaker than ever. More and more I have a hard time differentiating Men from Women because I'm surrounded by sniveling wimps everywhere. They won't fight for their country..they won't respect authority they have no moral convictions..."if I like it then screw everyone else". Think about this....had many Americans not died in WWII fighting for the US do you think you'd be sitting in front of a computer whining about when the Powermac G5 is coming?
Everything you have is good enough that someone out there wants to take it. Schools have emasculated men long enough. Do you really think you will stand a chance against a Islamic Fanatic who is not only willing but Relishes the opportunity to kill you or your children?
Think about what you REALLY think is rediculous
<strong>The first amendment has nothing to say about a "Separation of Church and State". I posted it above, the relevant portion is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
On the day he approved Congress' putting the words "under God" into the Pledge, then-president Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
Ooops! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, I generally don't agree with you Groverat, but I do completely in this instance. An end to the country? Please, it seems to me that we're just reverting back to the original design. Further, if "god" was "de minimus" as the Gov't claims, why don't they just drop it? Well, b/c its not de minimus. Why are people so afraid of people who believe differently than they do? Nothing is stopping the pledge reciters from reciting it at home (or church or where ever). Why are public institutions needed as an additional forum? They're only needed if you want to establish an orthodoxy of thought - you've got a captive audience.
BTW, its been illegal to compel children or anyone else for that matter to recite the pledge of allegiance. See Barnette v. WV. I believe that case came out in the early to mid 50's.
The only way the Supreme Court will reverse this is 1) if it gets there and 2) if they label it ceremonial deism. What will probably happen is the 9th Cir (not, as some of you believe, a California court. It is a federal court whose jurisdiction covers Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada, and Hawai'i. They do hear argument in California as well as the other states) will grant rehearing en banc and reverse. That will be the end of that b/c the Supremes will duck it and refuse to grant cert.
Thoth
Errr... no.
First off, "God" is the god outlined in the Bible.
You'll notice it doesn't say, "one nation, under a god", but "one nation, under God".
It's not ambiguous at all, that's the reason we have so much outrage about "Godless liberals" and "atheists".
It's the Christian God, stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.
And that doesn't even matter! If it said "Allah/Vishnu/Zeus/Satan/Brahman/Krishna" it would matter, because it's establishment of religion, plain and simple.
It is pledging allegiance to a nation (fine) and in that statement you have you relenting submission to a Christian god. Sorry, but that's a no-no.
[quote]For some crackpot Atheist to tell me that i'm "forcing" my religion on he/she is insane.<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Because... only a crackpot athiest would see the obvious implications.
[quote]Religious freedom to me means the ability for ANY person to praise their creator or God without impunity.<hr></blockquote>
You can. That is your right. Overturning the 1954 act putting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance has NOTHING to do with you being able worship your God.
[quote]Look at what we have now. Schools will not permit the mention of God or Jesus or any religous dialect...is that not persecution???<hr></blockquote>
Since when were you not allowed to talk about God in school?
I talked about God all the time in school, never got in trouble for it.
There are few things Christians love more than thinking they are being oppressed.
[quote]Second.. if you have not lived in the REAL world yet. If you are a student being spoon fed your knowledge from a Professor then you have no experience to pool from. I thought the Pledge of Allegiance was stupid back in school. Kids always feel their parents are talking babble to them...but the fact is when you hit your late 20's you "remember" these words and they NOW make sense. You realize why we say it and what your parents were attempting say.<hr></blockquote>
I am confused by this paragraph, what does it mean?
[quote]The Men of the US are weaker than ever. More and more I have a hard time differentiating Men from Women because I'm surrounded by sniveling wimps everywhere. They won't fight for their country..they won't respect authority they have no moral convictions..."if I like it then screw everyone else". Think about this....had many Americans not died in WWII fighting for the US do you think you'd be sitting in front of a computer whining about when the Powermac G5 is coming?<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You'd make a great op-ed columnist for FoxNews or the National Review.
[quote]Everything you have is good enough that someone out there wants to take it. Schools have emasculated men long enough. Do you really think you will stand a chance against a Islamic Fanatic who is not only willing but Relishes the opportunity to kill you or your children?<hr></blockquote>
What in the name of fuck are you talking about?
Atheists are a small minority and it is the duty of our Gov to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority when Liberties are being taken. Is it a Liberty to be free from the influences of Religion....I think not.
- Cliff Walker, Positive Atheism magazine
Couldn't have said it better myself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>TELL me about it! I gotta live with these hammerheads!
Quick, somebody throw me a life jacket!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm on it Scates...meanwhile you can stand on Snof's head until we get there with the flotation devices. What a righteous SF dude he is...we should be impressed that he left out the words "under God" when he was a kid. So forward-thinking and politically correct!
Check this headline from CNN:
[quote]
U.S. Supreme Court upholds use of taxpayer-funded vouchers to send students to religious schools.
<hr></blockquote>
So much for the seperation of church and state.
[quote]WHITE HOUSE PREPARING FOR POSSIBLE SUPREME COURT RESIGNATION <hr></blockquote>
<strong>Right or wrong, this case just died.
Check this headline from CNN:
So much for the seperation of church and state.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a completely different legal issue, although it has passing similarities b/c the government is involved. However, this does NOT involve state sponsored speech also involving a captive audience. This is a major distinction.
Thoth
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
<strong>"Those who put "In God We Trust" on our money, who put "under God" into our Pledge of Allegiance talk about "religious freedom." I'm not sure I know what "religious freedom" means, except that it allows the majority, the Christians, to trample the rights of us who think the Christian claim is falsehood, who think the Christian concept of morality is based mainly on the greed of the Christians."
- Cliff Walker, Positive Atheism magazine
Couldn't have said it better myself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? What "Rights" have Christians taken from you?
<strong>
Really? What "Rights" have Christians taken from you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The same right that Christians claim has been taken from them by not being allowed to have the state shove Christian beliefs down everybody's throat. Freedom of Religion. Or in this case, Freedom FROM religion. Take off your blinders and think critically, you might see it. I understand that you think "god" in the pledge has no religious content, but the simple fact of the hew and cry coming from religious groups and the Eisenhower statement Groverat quoted belie that. I really think you ought to try to imagine what it would be like to be surrounded by people who were pledging allegiance to "one Nation, under Satan, indivisible...etc" I think that God there is clearly normative and the SOLE purpose for reciting the pledge in schools is to inculcate children in the value set expressed therein. I'm sure you don't think that they are trying to teach children that "the word god has no normative value with respect to religion, its only there to signify christianity's significance in our Country." Do you? I think that's just a post-hoc crass rationalization by the DOJ that tries to hide the real motive behind the case.
Finally, you all may think that this is trivial and stupid and pc etc, but I think it is a wonderful example of trying to prevent a "death by a thousand cuts." BTW, there is a real difference b/w "politically correct" and "legally correct" and just "correct." I think you might try to distinguish among them b/4 you resort to that somewhat toothless epithet.
Thoth
Thoth
<strong>It will be interesting to see how people react to the fact that their money could now fund a child's education through a Hebrew, Christian, Catholic, or Muslim school.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why should they be mad? Homeowner pay taxes and Levies for local public schools even in they send their children to Private schools.
Just what does the Establishment Clause say? I don't believe it says that our Govt has to castigate the rights of citizens who wish to exercise their religious freedom. That freedom extends to everyone..but here we have a prevailing attitude that religion in schools is wrong. How'd that happen?
[quote]. Freedom of Religion. Or in this case, Freedom FROM religion. Take off your blinders and think critically, you might see it. I understand that you think "god" in the pledge has no religious content, <hr></blockquote>
Total Bullshit! Our Country was FOUNDED on Judao-Christian beliefs and for you to say that the masses are running from Religion is assinine. You have the right to choose and support your religion or no religion but you do not have the right to subvert our beliefs.
Thoth where do your rights come from?
<strong>
Total Bullshit! Our Country was FOUNDED on Judao-Christian beliefs and for you to say that the masses are running from Religion is assinine. You have the right to choose and support your religion or no religion but you do not have the right to subvert our beliefs.
Thoth where do your rights come from?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, our country was founded on a document that specifically excludes religious orthodoxy through arms of the state. You'll recall that the "founders" (the fathers and mothers of the founders actually) were fleeing religious persectution. Its a simple concept really. It does not matter that our founders were, by and large, Christians of some stripe (note that "Christianity" is not monolithic) - that fact does not mean that we have to all be Christians, or that we should tolerate the state sponsorship of religious orthodoxy, no matter how small the actual encroachment appears to the elightened. I don't think assinine is a fair characterization of my argument. Furthermore, I didn't say that the masses were running from religion, I said that the "right" that Christians (not all Christains mind you) are trampling on is that same one they seek to hide behind when they come up with plans to put religions in state institutions (sometimes with "secular" justifications like "history" and the like).
Finally, you hit the nail on the head in your last sentence. However, I don't believe that trying to protect people from subversion of their beliefs by preventing the state sponsorship of a religious message subverts YOUR beliefs BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO USE ARMS OF THE STATE TO SPONSOR YOUR RELIGION. Got it? Worship where you want, even in school, just don't let the legislature prescribe a religious ritual in a public institution. Its not that hard. Nothing in what I wrote before suggested the legal power to subvert anyone's beliefs. Read it again if you have to.
My right to be free from the tyranny of a state established religion is very clearly stated in the 1st Amendment. I'd suggest you read the document and caselaw on establishment of religion and coerced speech before you make arguments from personal beliefs - this a legal, NOT a moral issue. You may wish to quibble with that characterization, but I can't help that.
Thoth
Do you want to know why it happened? It's because some people don't believe in a God. It's because some people believe in different Gods.
For example: How fair is it for a Jewish child to go to a public school and sing Christmas carols about Jesus the savior? In that same light, how would you like it if your child was made to do something from another religion?
Also, I have a REAL PROBLEM in having to pay for other people's kids to go to private schools. It's their choice whether they go to public schools or not, and if they choose to send them to a private, religious school, then they should have to pay for it. This mainly benefits the rich and private schools over anyone else, as private schools will just raise tuition and make more money to make the school 'better' for the rich students attending.
Public schools are WAY underfunded already, and we're supposed to take money AWAY from them to pay for private schools which actually get endowments? PLEASE! Teachers in public schools are completely underpaid and do not have the proper materials to teach our children, and we're taking money away from them. Totally ridiculous and backwards.
I found this on another site:
[quote]The Treaty of Tripoli (1797) contained the statement that "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
The treaty was ratified unanimously by the Senate in the 339th recorded vote of that body following the founding of the Republic. It was only the THIRD time a measure passed unanimously.
<hr></blockquote>
I believe that religion needs to stay out of schools, as there is always someone 'offended' by another's religion, whether it be not worshipping the same God, or not following a religion at all, the only way to keep things as calm as possible is to leave religions out of schools and the government as much as possible. People can worship, etc. on their own time, outside of the government buildings and schools.
Am I the only one?
--
hmurch:
[quote]Pushing ones religion underground IS persecution. Seperation of Church and State is not a doctrine. The Establishment Clause ensures that the Gov cannot mandate a particular religion and that Muslims Christians, Jews, Atheists and whoever can peacefully worship without persecution.<hr></blockquote>
The establishment clause mandates that the .gov cannot establish any religion. Having the pledge to the nation include a pledge to subject yourself to the Christian god is establishment of religion.
Open -> shut.
"under God" is a no-no. It was let go for a long time but the bluff has been called, time to take it out and move on with our lives.
[quote]What happens when a person praises God in school...they're hushed.<hr></blockquote>
That is, to put it frankly, complete and total bullshit.
You can't stand up in class testifying about Jesus, yeah, but you can't stand up in the middle of class and blather on about anything.
Do you realize that by claiming oppression you are whining just as you accuse the "crackpot athiests" of whining?
[quote]Is it a Liberty to be free from the influences of Religion....I think not.<hr></blockquote>
Is it a liberty to be free from the influences of religion set forth by the government?... I think so.