DescentBB

Please explain your answer.

I think all law ultimately comes from some sort of a religion. I think that without a religion to regulate the government's basis for laws, the laws will eventually become either too lax, leading to lots of crime, or too strict, leading to opression.

There is no clause or provision in the Constitution of the United States specifically defining "Separation of Church and State."

I believe it is in so far as we dont have any state imposed religion. If we were to adhere to the strictest interperetation of separation of church and state, whereby God has absolutely no place at all in the government, all of our money would be unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "In God We Trust".

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

If you interperet that clause literally, it means that 1. Congress cannot mandate a National Religion, or 2. Do anything to prevent you from practicing whatever religion you want, be it Christianity, Budhism, Islam, Judaism, Paganism, Athiesm, or even Satanism. Specifically, its only Congress thats prohibited from doing that. There is no mention that the entire government itself may not do anything with regards to religion.

For example, there have been several widely publicised episodes in recent months of ACLU or similar groups backlashing against cities and states that have the Ten Commandments displayed. The argument being that these monuments violate the first ammendment in some way. If you look at the literal interperetation of the first amendment, these claims are absolutley bogus. There is nothing in the US constitution prohibiting the Alabama Supreme Court, or the city of Duluth, MN for displaying the Ten Commandments. Are these monuments state endorsements of Religion? Yes, quite clearly they are. Are they illegal? No, they are not. Only Congress is prohibited constitutionally from endorsing religion. Congress could concievably pass a law that would ban all displays of religion by a governmental entity, but to be the one that proposed such a law, or to have voted for it would likely be political suicide in this country, and especially in the red states.

Additionally, just because some city displays the ten commandments, how does that affect anyones rights? Would you go jump off the Empire State Building just because someone on TV told you to? Unless you are a complete moron, probably not. Would a Christian convert to Islam if his cities courthouse displayed verses from the Koran? Probably not. This is a similar situation the the de-religionizing of the Christmas holiday by using more politically correct phrases such as "Happy holidays" or "This is going to be the best Christmahaunikwanza ever!" Just because one institution endorses religion, it does not mean that your ability to pick your own is diminished. Your first ammendment rights are preserved. If some governmental entity decided to go Spanish Inquisition on you, then they would possibly be in violation of those rights.

Avder wrote:

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

.......... There is no mention that the entire government itself may not do anything with regards to religion.

Actually the exact opposite is true Avder, the writers of the constition only included things the federal goverment was meant to do. It was not written to spell out things the federal goverment could not do. Everything else was to be governed by the states. It did not mention religion as the federal goverment was meant to have no say in religion. Many of the constitutions writers did not believe the line above from the first ammendment was necessary.

No, there was no intent on the part of the founders to exclude religion completely as some would say. However it really depends on the way the majority of the Supreme Court interperets it. If four out of seven of them say it is then, technically, it is.

LOL! There is absolutely no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution of the United States of America. It does exist in the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In Article 52.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, That among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Funny how they say we have a seperation of church and state, and yet our founding fathers make reference to God in our Declaration of Independence. this is typical when a few PPL take a single line out of context and twist it to say what ever they want.

Congress shall establish no religion, or prohibit the free exercise there of.

this was meant that there shall not be a government religion IE the church of England. it is VERY clear when you read the Declaration and even Thomas Jeffersons "Federalist papers" that it was NOT the intent of our government to remove religion from our lives.it was the intent of our fore fathers to stay keep the goverment out of the business of religion pro or con. it is freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. this really is along the same line as freedom of the press. you can see what happens when the Government controls the press.

I just don't want religion sticking their nose into my life.

Pugwash wrote:

Avder wrote:

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

.......... There is no mention that the entire government itself may not do anything with regards to religion.

Actually the exact opposite is true Avder, the writers of the constition only included things the federal goverment was meant to do.

Ever heard of the nessecary and proper clause? its pretty damned ambiguous, and its not the only ambiguous statement in the constitution. There is nothing else in the constitution expressly prohibiting any other branch of the Federal Government, or any state, county, or local government from doing things with regards to religion. Granted, tthe executive and judicial branch cant simply impose their will (altho massachusets would have you think they could), but there are ways around that. Executive orders, for example. State laws. internal policies, what have you.

Ferno wrote:I just don't want religion sticking their nose into my life.

excuse me?????

and just exactly what do you think the NON-religious types are doing by preventing me from expressing my religious beliefs. they are " sticking their nose into my life" they are doing it even more so than the relgious types are, it gets mentioned of a possible amendment about gay marrage and the left freaks, but they have been using the courts for decades to remove my freedoms. seems to me Ferno that whats good for the goose cmon Ferno what happened to the "tollerence" that the left is always preaching about? why do you and Testi hate us so much? why do we scare you the way we do? with almost every post that you and him make on this kind of subject you spit venom at the right a little religion might do you some good

can someone define this for me pls:

if activityX is not deemed "illegal" under the constitution (ie: it's not even mentioned, so it's assumed to be legal). is doing activityX therefore considered "constitutional"?

i'm not sure if constitutional means "it's ok, the constitution doesn't say it's illegal" or if it means "the constitution says you MUST do this"

does constitutional mean "referring to the constitution" or does it mean "legal"?

is my question understood?

Avder I was making a comment on the ORIGINAL intentions of the writers of the constitution. Merely because I thought it interesting, not to professs a belief in one direction or the other. It seems to me that this should not be a federal question but one decided on a state by state basis. The president should have no say in this matter and should not be pushing in one direction or the other.

Im not sure what people exactly mean by "the seperation of church and state" anyways. I see no mention of religion in the constitution or ammendments other than the line you already posted. Where did "seperation" come from. I know it is commonly used, but why?

Cuda, I dont see how gay marraige removes any rights from you. I see how banning gay marraige removes equality for homosexuals however.

I personally dont want ANY of my tax money going to religion. If anyone is worse with money than the goverment it has to be the major religions.

If this is about saying the pledge at school, I think banning that is silly. As long as no one is forced to say the pledge, or the in god line, what is the problem.

Cuda, most non religious people don't stick their noses in your life, they stay out of it. But it's your moral high kick that leads you to believe that YOU are right and should have the say so in everything. Abortion, gay marriage, family values, non religious people don't tell you how to live. But right wing religious freaks have a funny way of telling you how to live your own life. I don't understand that, how can the religious following be disgusted at gay marriage, yet when a priest is caught playing salami sandwich with the altar boys, he just gets moved to another area. Hmmm...

Pugwash said it all.

Pugwash wrote:....Im not sure what people exactly mean by "the seperation of church and state" anyways. I see no mention of religion in the constitution or ammendments other than the line you already posted. Where did "seperation" come from. I know it is commonly used, but why?...

It's from here and has been taken out of context and distorted by politicians and their ilk since day one.

Pugwash wrote:Avder I was making a comment on the ORIGINAL intentions of the writers of the constitution. Merely because I thought it interesting, not to professs a belief in one direction or the other. It seems to me that this should not be a federal question but one decided on a state by state basis. The president should have no say in this matter and should not be pushing in one direction or the other.

Im not sure what people exactly mean by "the seperation of church and state" anyways. I see no mention of religion in the constitution or ammendments other than the line you already posted. Where did "seperation" come from. I know it is commonly used, but why?

Cuda, I dont see how gay marraige removes any rights from you. I see how banning gay marraige removes equality for homosexuals however.

I personally dont want ANY of my tax money going to religion. If anyone is worse with money than the goverment it has to be the major religions.

If this is about saying the pledge at school, I think banning that is silly. As long as no one is forced to say the pledge, or the in god line, what is the problem.

It's not just about the pledge anymore. Christians aren't allowed to pray openly before they eat at school; they aren't allowed to form prayer groups that meet at schools. I don't see any rules, however, forbidding students to bring buddha statues to school; I don't see any rules forbidding Muslim students from praying to their God 5 times a day, heck, I don't even see any rules banning students from pouring out libations of wine to Mars, the Roman God of War! Don't give me this "We aren't sticking our noses into your life" crap. If this wasn't happening, I'd probably be in public school right now.

Pug, I don't exactly see how anyone could be worse with money than the government. The Roman Catholic church, from what I've seen, is the worst of all religious churches about the use of money--but they still put it to better use than the government. They can at least create beautiful architecture with their money. Our state government, however... When your state school superintendant makes more than the Vice President of the United States, you know something's wrong.

About the constitution, nowhere in it is mentioned separation of church and state, as has been said before. It was mentioned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a friend, saying how he didn't want the government to be sticking their noses in religion. On the other hand, public schools were originally started with the intent of teaching its students about the Bible! Our first president was a Christian. Our founding fathers were mostly Christian. I don't think you'll ever be able to change that, if you argue about it for ten thousand years. Of course, if the ACLU has its way, no one will ever know about how our country was founded, but that's another story.

I express my opinion and now i'm some kind of left wing religion hater?

christ cuda you couldn't have made a bigger jump to a conclusion if it was an olympic event..

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where's the arguement?

This is how I feel:

If people want to pray in school or practice their religion in school or government, that's fine as long as they don't make me take part of their nonsense.

Pugwash wrote:Avder I was making a comment on the ORIGINAL intentions of the writers of the constitution.

The original intent argument is so flaky and difficult to prove tho.

Will Robinson wrote:

Pugwash wrote:....Im not sure what people exactly mean by "the seperation of church and state" anyways. I see no mention of religion in the constitution or ammendments other than the line you already posted. Where did "seperation" come from. I know it is commonly used, but why?...

It's from here and has been taken out of context and distorted by politicians and their ilk since day one.

thanks for the linky Will.

Avder wrote:The original intent argument is so flaky and difficult to prove tho.

Funny, that's the way I feel about the whole 'murder-is-a-crime' thing.

I don't think the original intent of those laws were designed to keep me from being able to kill people that really need killin'.
I'm pretty sure it's best to just look at written law as more of a rough guideline....original intent being so flaky and hard to prove anyway

Stryker wrote:Don't give me this "We aren't sticking our noses into your life" crap. If this wasn't happening, I'd probably be in public school right now.

This explains a lot

Beowulf-The Peacekeeper!

In all honesty, what Beowulf said is exactly how it should be.

Tyranny wrote:

Stryker wrote:Don't give me this "We aren't sticking our noses into your life" crap. If this wasn't happening, I'd probably be in public school right now.

This explains a lot

hehehe

Yes, it is constitutional.

The separation of church and state as it is practiced now is not addressed in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment is such a way that we have the laws we have concerning it. Therefore it is constitutional.

Tyranny,
By making the statement "that explains a lot".. What are you suggesting?

B-

Dedman wrote:Yes, it is constitutional.

The separation of church and state as it is practiced now is not addressed in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment is such a way that we have the laws we have concerning it. Therefore it is constitutional.

In other words the Supreme Court made laws (which, according to the constitution, is NOT their purpose) banning Christians from praying in school, etc?

Stryker wrote:

Dedman wrote:Yes, it is constitutional.

The separation of church and state as it is practiced now is not addressed in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment is such a way that we have the laws we have concerning it. Therefore it is constitutional.

In other words the Supreme Court made laws (which, according to the constitution, is NOT their purpose) banning Christians from praying in school, etc?

It is the supreme courts job to interpret the law however which is what I think Deadman said they did.

Ive never heard of anyone being banned from private prayer in any public school. If a kid (or anyone else) wants to bow his head and say grace before eating for example no one is gonna stop him......... are they?

Pugwash wrote:If a kid (or anyone else) wants to bow his head and say grace before eating for example no one is gonna stop him......... are they?

In some schools (California) or if you are a government employee in the public lunchroom for instance yes, I believe they would. In California they banned the Declaration of Independance

I've been following that, Will.. Retarded.

Thats not the same thing Will, that is a teacher handing out religous material to kids in an official capacity. Although that seems like outrageous misuse of the law by that principle it doesnt apply to my question.

Inside joke Barry. If you've paid any attention to the dialog Stryker and I have had over the last month you'd get it

Somehow I expected him to post in this thread. It's like clockwork Besides, this topic doesn't really interest me all that much.

It's always boiled down to the fact that the government can't impose a national religion, though in most circles it's Christianity, on any individual who doesn't wish to participate in said religion. History has shown the people within the religion have done their damndest to do this on their own however.

I consider this another religious flamebait thread anyways. No offense B.

I said this once before. In my school, I tried to make friends, like I always do, to these two new students. They are Muslims, but I couldn't because all they want to do is talk religion and tell me of their side and even left pamplets in my locker. Geez. You wonder why religious people can get annoying, I just wanted to be regular friends. Well..were not, and it's sad. They don't even take gym.
I believe in total separation of church and state. Religion should be a personal choice and private. I want religion out of public school and put in the church where it belongs so if you need it, you can go there. I go to school for an education and to church for....well you already know what and why.

The flag is another issue. I have it on all my notebooks and I've already told my dad that the first teacher who tells me to remove it I'm walking out...

Just rambling....
Bettina

Pugwash wrote:Thats not the same thing Will, that is a teacher handing out religous material to kids in an official capacity. Although that seems like outrageous misuse of the law by that principle it doesnt apply to my question.

I'll look for a report of students being stopped from saying grace but I don't think I'm reaching too far to say that if one finds the Declaration of Independance too dangerously religious of an artifact to expose children to then certainly being in the presence of someone engaged in a real time conversation with god would be enough to warrant calling out the national guard!
Probably need to hold the offender under water until god himself intervenes to save them, or until they drown, proving there is no god once and for all.

Will Robinson wrote:Probably need to hold the offender under water until god saves them or until they drown, proving there is no god once and for all.

hahaha...rofl

thx Will, I needed that

Pugwash wrote:that is a teacher handing out religous material to kids in an official capacity

What?!?! The Declaration of Independence is now "religious material"?!?!

DCrazy wrote:

Pugwash wrote:that is a teacher handing out religous material to kids in an official capacity

What?!?! The Declaration of Independence is now "religious material"?!?!

I keep waiting to hear he's actually been trying to use his position as a teacher to indoctrinate the kids and the principle has had to stop him from passing out all kinds of stuff like bibles and other non-curriculum related documents, but so far nothing.
You'd think they would defend their position if they had a defense....

So you're saying that the lack of accusations against him regarding distribution of religious material, and his subsequent lack of defense against such charges, is proof that he is doing so? Logic, please? There is absolutely no reason for you, based on the link that Will posted, to believe that the man has been abusing his position to hand out Bibles. Every single piece of banned literature listed in that article has been relevant to the foundation and formation of this country. On top of that, it's Reuters, which would be the FIRST agency to find out if this man was spreading evil, evil Christianity to all the good little diverse studentpeople.