Question to everyone...

[Tiger Al 0]

I've always wondered, and have asked here a few times with no response, why conservatives (some? many? most?) want to break the barrier between church and state? I'm not talking about a congressman using his religious beliefs to guide his vote on, say, abortion. I don't have a problem with that. Everyone uses some belief system to guide their actions.

I'm talking about the right's agenda to have governmental institutions endorse and even promote a particular religious sect by way of large religious icons prominently placed in public, government buildings, forced prayer, whether it be in public schools or courtrooms, and the general overall desire to politicize religion.

Maybe a shorter way to ask the question is, why is separation of church and state wrong?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Maybe you never got an answer because few of us area zealous enough to want to turn this country into a theocracy, like some right wing extremists want to do (Randall Terry). You just assume ALL Republicans/conservatives are like that, since only the wacko fringe extremists get the play (Roy Moore, Randall Terry, Ralph Reed), so the media makes you think that ALL of us are like that.

My personal church-state beef is simple - it is okay to discuss Islam and Ramadan in World History. It is okay to discuss the creation of Israel in Government class. But let a school district so much as sing a religious Christmas carol in a school play and people freak out. Just like SO MANY OTHER THINGS, common sense is being lost in the rush to be politically correct. It is not so much that I am in a rush to politicize religion, it is just that I am tired of having MY religion overlooked in an effort to prevent "offending" someone else, just because my religion happens to be Christian.

All the Constitution says is that Congress shall not establish a national religion - that was in a direct effort to prevent what happened in England, where the National Anglican Religion allowed for the persecution of anyone who did not endorse that faith, especially "papists" (Catholics). In England, the Church WAS the State, and vice versa. The King or Queen was and still is the Head of The Church Of England. It bounced back and forth there for so long - first Henry VIII stoped whacking off his wives' heads long enough to burn some Catholics and tear down some monastaries; then good old Bloody Mary came in and "restablished the One True Religion" and burned or tortured all the Protestants; then Elizabeth II came in and added a few more Catholics to the martyrs list... and so on. THIS is what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent - they wanted everyone to be able to worship as they pleased without fear of persecution. You can't tell me with all honesty that singing a Christmas carol in school means that a Muslim child will be burned at the stake during recess.

Having the Ten Commandments on the wall of a courtroom or outside City Hall does not mean that an atheist will be treated any differently than anyone else - the law itself is blind. Those who apply it are the ones influenced by their belief system, and that is jsut the way it goes. If I am on a jury, and I going to use my belief system when voting to convict someone, then having the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse will not make one whit of difference between how I vote. If I am a Quaker, and my religious beliefs do not allow me to support the death penalty, then nothing will make me vote that way in opposition to my beliefs. So no matter what you do, you will not be able to take religion out of the decision making process for the average human. If you ahve a problem with that, then what about a Muslim judge? I am a woman - the Muslim religion is not known for being equal in treatment of women - should he not be allowed to be a judge because of his religious beliefs? No one ever asks that question - unless you are a Christian, and that is my big problem with the whole thing.

Giving federal money to churches and "faith based organizations" also should not be a problem for separation of church and state. If you want to help the people who need help, why not make the most of existing organizations who are already helping those same people instead of creating a whole bunch of bureaucracy whose administrative costs would eat into the funding???

Once again, common sense takes a back seat to "political correctness".

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

Normally I don't get involved in the political discussions here, but I will give this one a shot, knowing I will probably get shut down by those with dissenting opinions, but here goes...

First of all, there is no mention of seperation of church and state in the Constitution. Unless someone can find it and show it to me, this statement goes as undisputed. The actual langauge states that Congress will make no law favoring a particular religion or establishing an official religion. I know that this is very loosely paraphrased, but that is the general gist of the language in the document.

As far as people like Roy Moore (whom I don't agree with on many issues) making religious or political statements with monuments, that is a touchy issue. He has gone on to say that the actual legal struggle was more about the issue of the jurisdiction of the courts, but we won't go there.

This country was founded on basic Judeo-Christion beliefs, to include laws that are based on The Ten Commandments. Congress regularly held services in the Capitol building and if I am not mistaken, still holds prayer during session. On the Supreme Court building, there is a copy of The Ten Commandments in the carvings outside the building. Our money says "In God We Trust." The argument that the framers meant a total absecnce of religion in government is incorrect. The seperation issue comes from the Church being tied to the government in England, which was intolerant of any other religion. Therefore the framers made the government one that would be tolerant of all religions. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case.

I am far from an expert, but that, in a very small nutshell, is what I take the language in the Constitution to mean.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Here's today's example of PC run amuck:

Taking Christ out of B.C.

P.C. scholars take Christ out of B.C.

By Michael Gormley

ASSOCIATED PRESS

ALBANY, N.Y. -- In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out.

The terms "B.C." and "A.D." increasingly are shunned by certain scholars.

Educators and historians say schools from North America to Australia have been changing the terms "Before Christ," or B.C., to "Before Common Era," or B.C.E., and "anno Domini" (Latin for "in the year of the Lord") to "Common Era." In short, they're referred to as B.C.E. and C.E.

The life of Christ still divides the epochs, but the change has stoked the ire of Christians and religious leaders who see it as an attack on a social and political order that has been in place for centuries.

For more than a century, Hebrew lessons have used B.C.E. and C.E., with C.E. sometimes referring to Christian Era.

This raises the question: Can old and new coexist in harmony, or must one give way to the other to reflect changing times and attitudes?

The terms B.C. and A.D. have clear Catholic roots. Dionysius Exiguus, an abbot in Rome, devised them as a way to determine the date for Easter for Pope St. John I. The terms were continued under the Gregorian Calendar, created in 1582 under Pope Gregory XIII.

Although most calendars are based on an epoch or person, B.C. and A.D. have always presented a particular problem for historians: There is no year zero; there's a 33-year gap, reflecting the life of Christ, dividing the epochs. Critics say that's additional reason to replace the Christian-based terms.

"When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar ... that's difficult for us," said Steven M. Brown, dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.OH PLEASE

The new terms were introduced by academics in the 1990s in public elementary and high school classrooms.

In New York, the terms are entering public classrooms through textbooks and worksheets, but B.C.E. and C.E. are not part of the state's official curriculum, and there is no plan to debate the issue, said state Education Department spokesman Jonathan Burman.

"The standard textbooks primarily used in New York use the terms A.D. and B.C.," Mr. Burman said. Schools, however, may choose to use the new terms, although B.C. and A.D. will continue to be used in the state Regents exams, many of which are required for high school graduation.

Candace de Russy, a national writer on education and Catholic issues and a trustee for the State University of New York, doesn't accept the notion of fence-straddling.

"The use of B.C.E. and C.E. is not mere verbal tweaking; rather it is integral to the leftist language police -- a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order," she said.

For centuries, B.C. and A.D. were used in public schools and universities, and in historical and most theological research. Some historians and college instructors started using the new forms as a less Christ-centric alternative.

"I think it's pretty common now," said Gary B. Nash, director of the National Center for History in the Schools. "Once you take a global approach, it makes sense not to make a dating system applicable only to a relative few."

But not everyone takes that pluralistic view.

"I find it distressing; I don't like it," said Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, which finds politics intruding on instruction. He said changing terms accepted for centuries because of a current social movement could threaten other long-held principles.

Mr. Nash said most major textbook companies have adopted the new terms, which are part of the national world history standards. But even those standards have been called into question.

In a 2000 national resolution, the Southern Baptist Convention condemned the new terms as "the result of the secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society."

"Is that some sort of the political correctness?" said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, an independent group with 60,000 educator members. "It sounds pretty silly to me."

[BamaGrad03 0]

I dont have a problem with seperating church and state. I do have a problem with people using that argument EVERY SINGLE TIME "God" is mentioned by a public official or on public grounds.

If a church wants to baptize in a public park river...it doesnt mean that the gvmt is ENDORSING a national religion.

If a kid wants to read his bible during lunch...it doesnt mean that the gvmt is ENDORSING a national religion.

I think it is an absolute stretch when people suggest that by ALLOWING external showings of faith by someone...is an endorsment of a single religion by the gvmt.

Why is the display of the ten commandments in a public place (courthouse etc) politicizing religion? How on earth does that MAKE someone follow a certain religion?

Why is it okay for us to bend over backwards as a country/gvmt to appease the needs/beliefs of Islam in the schools/workplace...but we are TOTALLY against allowing kids a moment of SILENCE to pray to a christian God? or to just be silent? What's wrong with a moment of silence? Can atheists not be silent without feeling a NEED to join a certain faith?

What's wrong with ALLOWING people to practice their religion on school grounds? What are we saying as a nation? We embrace your right to religion...but you can't outwardly express your faith...unless its in your own home or church?

Again, we are getting to a point of strong arming people into making their religious practices and beliefs into a window of time that leasts offends the minority...because we HAVE to be PC.

Im bothered that you can't have a christmas tree in a Fire Station. Im bothered that the ACLU wants to change the names of Los Angeles and San Diego becuase they are offended. Here again...it's OKAY to do ANYTHING in america...as long as its not Christian...then someone is offended. Some of us take it personal that people are on a crusade to eliminate ANYTHING that publicly projects a recognition of faith.

[Tiger Al 0]

Jenny, first let me thank you for giving such a thoughtful, well-reasoned reply instead of the knee-jerk responses that will probably follow.

You just assume ALL Republicans/conservatives are like that, since only the wacko fringe extremists get the play (Roy Moore, Randall Terry, Ralph Reed), so the media makes you think that ALL of us are like that.

If you'll go back, you'll see that I tried to be careful NOT to make stereotypical generalizations by including in parentheses (some? many? most?). I don't actually know how many conservatives, or liberals for that matter, would not want delineation between church/state. Enough republican politicians rise up on these issues to give me the impression that it's something they support and believe their constituents support.

My personal church-state beef is simple - it is okay to discuss Islam and Ramadan in World History. It is okay to discuss the creation of Israel in Government class. But let a school district so much as sing a religious Christmas carol in a school play and people freak out. Just like SO MANY OTHER THINGS, common sense is being lost in the rush to be politically correct. It is not so much that I am in a rush to politicize religion, it is just that I am tired of having MY religion overlooked in an effort to prevent "offending" someone else, just because my religion happens to be Christian.

Would you not agree that Christianity in America is hardly overlooked? Christianity isn't some minor religious cult in Montana so I think that most people know Christianity to some degree or another. While I don't remember whether we discussed Islam in high school, we did in college world history, as we did Christianity and other things that shaped world history.

All the Constitution says is that Congress shall not establish a national religion - that was in a direct effort to prevent what happened in England, where the National Anglican Religion allowed for the persecution of anyone who did not endorse that faith, especially "papists" (Catholics). In England, the Church WAS the State, and vice versa. The King or Queen was and still is the Head of The Church Of England. It bounced back and forth there for so long - first Henry VIII stoped whacking off his wives' heads long enough to burn some Catholics and tear down some monastaries; then good old Bloody Mary came in and "restablished the One True Religion" and burned or tortured all the Protestants; then Elizabeth II came in and added a few more Catholics to the martyrs list... and so on. THIS is what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent - they wanted everyone to be able to worship as they pleased without fear of persecution. You can't tell me with all honesty that singing a Christmas carol in school means that a Muslim child will be burned at the stake during recess.

But the courts have repeatedly found that the 1st Amendment is more than simply gov't. setting up a national church. It also includes gov't. endorsement of a particular religion to the exclusion of all others, even if there were no others.

Having the Ten Commandments on the wall of a courtroom or outside City Hall does not mean that an atheist will be treated any differently than anyone else - the law itself is blind. Those who apply it are the ones influenced by their belief system, and that is jsut the way it goes. If I am on a jury, and I going to use my belief system when voting to convict someone, then having the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse will not make one whit of difference between how I vote. If I am a Quaker, and my religious beliefs do not allow me to support the death penalty, then nothing will make me vote that way in opposition to my beliefs. So no matter what you do, you will not be able to take religion out of the decision making process for the average human. If you ahve a problem with that, then what about a Muslim judge? I am a woman - the Muslim religion is not known for being equal in treatment of women - should he not be allowed to be a judge because of his religious beliefs? No one ever asks that question - unless you are a Christian, and that is my big problem with the whole thing.

The question isn't about whether someone will be swayed or not. Although, if I were Bhuddist or Islamic or atheistic or even agnostic I wouldn't like my chances in Roy Moore's court because Christianity was so pervasive that being a non-Christian had the appearance of being strike one. Isn't the question about whether gov't. should so heavily endorse a religion, any religion, when it should be neutral in such matters, primarily because, in America, religion is voluntary not compulsory?

Giving federal money to churches and "faith based organizations" also should not be a problem for separation of church and state. If you want to help the people who need help, why not make the most of existing organizations who are already helping those same people instead of creating a whole bunch of bureaucracy whose administrative costs would eat into the funding???

Depending on how it works, I don't disagree with you.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

You just assume ALL Republicans/conservatives are like that, since only the wacko fringe extremists get the play (Roy Moore, Randall Terry, Ralph Reed), so the media makes you think that ALL of us are like that.

I should have gone back and added a caveat that the reference to "YOU" was to the general "you" not "You,. TigerAl". Sorry about that. Should have made the edit.

This is one of those things where the extreme minority, in this case on the right, speaks loudly and influences others to believe that this lunatic fringe speaks for ALL of us. NOT so.

You also have to think about it like this - and maybe some of the shysters, I mean lawyers on this board can help me out here - if you have a jury trial, the judge's personal beliefs have very little room for impact. He or she can certainly include or exclude certain items or approve or disaprove certain motions based on his or her own personal beliefs, but at some point, if it were clear that the judge was allowing his or her personal religious beliefs to actively persecute someone of a different religion, don't you think people would eventually step up and say or do something about it? There is always another court to overturn a verdict or ruling based upon judicial error or bias. To me, it seems as tho the JURY is the one that has the most impact on a person's verdict at trial, as well as the sentence in many places. The judge is kind of a moderator and keeps things flowing smoothly, but the jury of one's peers makes the decisions that have the most impact. So even if I were Muslim, and I was in Roy Moore's courtroom in Gadsden, I would be most concerned about the jury of Bubbas that got selected for jury duty rather than anything Moore could do to me.

Christianity in America is not overlooked, but it sure as heck seems as tho the PC police are trying to make it that way. If I am on a jury and I pray openly but silently for guidance before rendering my decision, the defense gets a mistrial. But if I am Muslim, I have to be allowed time during deliberations to pray five times a day facing Mecca. If Katie wears a cross around her neck to a public school, she gets sent home, but Jewish students can wear yarmulekes and Muslim students can wear head scarves as expressions of their faith. It jsut seems as tho there is a double standard against Christianity. It seems as tho it is another case of minority trying to bring the majority to its knees again - people can't accept that the majority rules, so any expression by the majority of their majority status is "OFFENSIVE". Well, get over it!! This country is majority Christian, and the MAJORITY of us want to see the Ten Commandments in public places, want to be able to sing a religious Christmas carol. That's like me going to France and being offended because everyeone spoke French!!! I get so frustrated when people who do NOT represent the majority in this country try and make everything about them and whatever minor segment of society they represent.

[AURainman 6]

I've always wondered, and have asked here a few times with no response, why conservatives (some? many? most?) want to break the barrier between church and state? I'm not talking about a congressman using his religious beliefs to guide his vote on, say, abortion. I don't have a problem with that. Everyone uses some belief system to guide their actions.

I'm talking about the right's agenda to have governmental institutions endorse and even promote a particular religious sect by way of large religious icons prominently placed in public, government buildings, forced prayer, whether it be in public schools or courtrooms, and the general overall desire to politicize religion.

Maybe a shorter way to ask the question is, why is separation of church and state wrong?

157168[/snapback]

I will attempt to respond directly to your question....Why is separation of church and state wrong?

It is not necessarily the term "separation" that is wrong, it is the interpretation of such a word.

Separation implies complete utter separation to some.

To others it means a barrier that can be crossed.

My personal beliefs, (Not to speak for the whole bunch of conservatives) is that Government should not create LAWS that establish a religion. Nor should they create LAWS that prohibit the free expression of religion.

Goverment should NOT be in charge of tearing down religious icons. In fact it is in the governments charge to DEFEND the right to these practices. Be it Christian, Muslim, or Jewish faith. Regardless of the minority or majority in power.

There is a misnomer in the terms separation of church and state. Truly, a better discriptor would be DEFENDER of individual's rights to church and state.

In short, I don't think it is in their charge as government to lift religious icons onto a pedestal. However, it sure as hell is not their place to tear such icons down.

Now, a return question to you...

Why does the left (some? many? most?) oppose the freedom of free expression of religion by pushing a PC, "let's not hurt anyone's feelings," agenda on conservative America? Why do they target those in power and question their faith? Why are they attacking the historical foundation of this country to try and "white-out" the references to God?

[Tiger Al 0]

Here's today's example of PC run amuck:

Taking Christ out of B.C.

P.C. scholars take Christ out of B.C.

By Michael Gormley

ASSOCIATED PRESS

ALBANY, N.Y. -- In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out.

The terms "B.C." and "A.D." increasingly are shunned by certain scholars.

Educators and historians say schools from North America to Australia have been changing the terms "Before Christ," or B.C., to "Before Common Era," or B.C.E., and "anno Domini" (Latin for "in the year of the Lord") to "Common Era." In short, they're referred to as B.C.E. and C.E.

The life of Christ still divides the epochs, but the change has stoked the ire of Christians and religious leaders who see it as an attack on a social and political order that has been in place for centuries.

For more than a century, Hebrew lessons have used B.C.E. and C.E., with C.E. sometimes referring to Christian Era.

This raises the question: Can old and new coexist in harmony, or must one give way to the other to reflect changing times and attitudes?

The terms B.C. and A.D. have clear Catholic roots. Dionysius Exiguus, an abbot in Rome, devised them as a way to determine the date for Easter for Pope St. John I. The terms were continued under the Gregorian Calendar, created in 1582 under Pope Gregory XIII.

Although most calendars are based on an epoch or person, B.C. and A.D. have always presented a particular problem for historians: There is no year zero; there's a 33-year gap, reflecting the life of Christ, dividing the epochs. Critics say that's additional reason to replace the Christian-based terms.

"When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar ... that's difficult for us," said Steven M. Brown, dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.OH PLEASE

The new terms were introduced by academics in the 1990s in public elementary and high school classrooms.

In New York, the terms are entering public classrooms through textbooks and worksheets, but B.C.E. and C.E. are not part of the state's official curriculum, and there is no plan to debate the issue, said state Education Department spokesman Jonathan Burman.

"The standard textbooks primarily used in New York use the terms A.D. and B.C.," Mr. Burman said. Schools, however, may choose to use the new terms, although B.C. and A.D. will continue to be used in the state Regents exams, many of which are required for high school graduation.

Candace de Russy, a national writer on education and Catholic issues and a trustee for the State University of New York, doesn't accept the notion of fence-straddling.

"The use of B.C.E. and C.E. is not mere verbal tweaking; rather it is integral to the leftist language police -- a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order," she said.

For centuries, B.C. and A.D. were used in public schools and universities, and in historical and most theological research. Some historians and college instructors started using the new forms as a less Christ-centric alternative.

"I think it's pretty common now," said Gary B. Nash, director of the National Center for History in the Schools. "Once you take a global approach, it makes sense not to make a dating system applicable only to a relative few."

But not everyone takes that pluralistic view.

"I find it distressing; I don't like it," said Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, which finds politics intruding on instruction. He said changing terms accepted for centuries because of a current social movement could threaten other long-held principles.

Mr. Nash said most major textbook companies have adopted the new terms, which are part of the national world history standards. But even those standards have been called into question.

In a 2000 national resolution, the Southern Baptist Convention condemned the new terms as "the result of the secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society."

"Is that some sort of the political correctness?" said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, an independent group with 60,000 educator members. "It sounds pretty silly to me."

157186[/snapback]

I realize some folks go too far with "PC." Our government, though, has always allowed some amount of religious representation, such as the ones that you and Known brought up (currency, Christmas carols, etc.) These aren't the kinds of church/state issues I'm talking about.

[Tiger Al 0]

You also have to think about it like this - and maybe some of the shysters, I mean lawyers on this board  can help me out here - if you have a jury trial, the judge's personal beliefs have very little room for impact.

Not really. Roy Moore used a Biblical basis for denying a woman the right to her child because the woman was a lesbian.

This country is majority Christian, and the MAJORITY of us want to see the Ten Commandments in public places, want to be able to sing a religious Christmas carol. That's like me going to France and being offended because everyeone spoke French!!!

Not quite. French is the official language of France, Christianity is not the official religion of America. It may be the most prevalent religion, but it's not the official one. When you say "public places" are you talking about government places or just somewhere in public (mall, etc.).

I try to look at it like this: The U of A is not the official school of Alabama (though they probably think so!!!). It would be an inappropriate endorsement of the U of A if Bear Bryant's statue were on the steps of the capital, the rotunda were adorned with Daniel Moore prints or "Yea Alabama" were sung at the opening of the school day, to the exclusion of every other college and university in Alabama, even though more Alabamians claim allegiance to the U of A than the others. The Bama fans would say there's nothing wrong with any of those things, and they probably wouldn't sway any juries to find an AU defendant more or less guilty or not guilty, but the state government has no place endorsing one university over another one.

[WarTim 3,456]

State SHOULD be seperate from Church. Nobody can EVER seperate Church from State.

President Bush is a Christian. As such, EVERY part of his life should be subject to the Lord.

p.s. Why haven't those libs gotten sandblasters and taken down every mention of God in D.C.? (Not to mention AL of the currency that must be destroyed ! ! !)

[Tiger Al 0]

If I am on a jury and I pray openly but silently for guidance before rendering my decision, the defense gets a mistrial.

I doubt that there would be a mistrial. You are excercising your 1st amendment right. Forcing the other jurors to join in would be different, but even then, I doubt a mistrial would result.

If Katie wears a cross around her neck to a public school, she gets sent home, but Jewish students can wear yarmulekes and Muslim students can wear head scarves as expressions of their faith.

This is not true at all. Again, a public school cannot discriminate against Katie because she's wearing a cross and if they did, a lawsuit SHOULD follow.

It seems as tho it is another case of minority trying to bring the majority to its knees again - people can't accept that the majority rules, so any expression by the majority of their majority status is "OFFENSIVE". Well, get over it!!

I don't see religious promotion by the gov't. as an area where majority should rule. Again, I believe the government has a responsibility to remain neutral in matters of religion.

[Piglet 0]

Seems to me that separation of church and state helps to keep us sane as a nation. You don't force a church to put up the Bill of Rights and the Flag on display in the sanctuary, and you don't force the courthouse to put up the Commandments. And not having those things on display is not evidence that the church isn't patriotic or that the government hates God.

Seems to me that God is in our hearts and cannot be driven out, and that the rituals and trimmings properly belong in our families and religious communities, not on display in the streets.

Seems to me that there's a delicate balance between the free exercise of religion and the establishment clause, but that common sense can solve it pretty easily. Step one is treating them equally. If and where, as Jenny says, muslims and Jews are free to pray or wear icons, then Christians are too.

Seems to me that school valedictorians are not de facto agents of the state, and that what an individual does on his own does not reflect the "tyranny of the government." If a teacher leads a prayer, it's a violation. If Junior takes it on himself to say a little prayer before the big test, it's nobody's business but his own and God's.

Seems to me that those who complain about little mentions of God here and there in government ceremonies are like those who care about the "right" to burn the American flag--they're technically correct, and if pressed, I'll say they have that right, but you wonder why they care that much about it.

Seems to me that anyone who can look at all the churches in every town in America, and can look at the Grand Canyon, the Rocky Mountains, or the amber waves of grain and tell me that God is being driven out of America ought to have his head examined.

And that's my answer.

[Tiger Al 0]

State SHOULD be seperate from Church. Nobody can EVER seperate Church from State.

President Bush is a Christian. As such, EVERY part of his life should be subject to the Lord.

p.s. Why haven't those libs gotten sandblasters and taken down every mention of God in D.C.? (Not to mention AL of the currency that must be destroyed ! ! !)

     

157220[/snapback]

But, do you believe that it is a thouroughly "one-way street" and that, sooner or later, religion would evolve from being the master to being the slave of the gov't?

[Tiger Al 0]

I dont have a problem with seperating church and state. I do have a problem with people using that argument EVERY SINGLE TIME "God" is mentioned by a public official or on public grounds.

C'mon, BG, you know this is an exaggeration.

If a church wants to baptize in a public park river...it doesnt mean that the gvmt is ENDORSING a national religion.

I agree with this, but, it should have some clear limitations.

If a kid wants to read his bible during lunch...it doesnt mean that the gvmt is ENDORSING a national religion.

You're right. Is that illegal?

I think it is an absolute stretch when people suggest that by ALLOWING external showings of faith by someone...is an endorsment of a single religion by the gvmt.

It may be if the gov't. is the one putting forth the religious icons to the exclusion of other religions.

Why is the display of the ten commandments in a public place (courthouse etc) politicizing religion? How on earth does that MAKE someone follow a certain religion?

It isn't politicizing it, it is an endorsement of it. Politicizing was what was done yesterday on "Justice Sunday" and by what Frist, DeLay, etc. do when they talk about judges.

Why is it okay for us to bend over backwards as a country/gvmt to appease the needs/beliefs of Islam in the schools/workplace...but we are TOTALLY against allowing kids a moment of SILENCE to pray to a christian God? or to just be silent? What's wrong with a moment of silence? Can atheists not be silent without feeling a NEED to join a certain faith?

The problem is when you have a captive audience and the prayer is led by or allowed by the school (gov't.). There is nothing that says that you can't pray or have a silent moment before a test, or just because.

What's wrong with ALLOWING people to practice their religion on school grounds? What are we saying as a nation? We embrace your right to religion...but you can't outwardly express your faith...unless its in your own home or church?

It would obviously depend on what "practice" you're talking about, wouldn't it?

Again, we are getting to a point of strong arming people into making their religious practices and beliefs into a window of time that leasts offends the minority...because we HAVE to be PC. Im bothered that you can't have a christmas tree in a Fire Station. Im bothered that the ACLU wants to change the names of Los Angeles and San Diego becuase they are offended. Here again...it's OKAY to do ANYTHING in america...as long as its not Christian...then someone is offended. Some of us take it personal that people are on a crusade to eliminate ANYTHING that publicly projects a recognition of faith.

I think this is exaggeration again. Do some folks go overboard? I'm sure they do. I really don't think Christianity in public is as persecuted as you do.

[Tiger Al 0]

Separation implies complete utter separation to some.

To others it means a barrier that can be crossed.

My personal beliefs, (Not to speak for the whole bunch of conservatives) is that Government should not create LAWS that establish a religion. Nor should they create LAWS that prohibit the free expression of religion.

Agreed.

Goverment should NOT be in charge of tearing down religious icons. In fact it is in the governments charge to DEFEND the right to these practices. Be it Christian, Muslim, or Jewish faith. Regardless of the minority or majority in power.

There is a misnomer in the terms separation of church and state. Truly, a better discriptor would be DEFENDER of individual's rights to church and state.

In short, I don't think it is in their charge as government to lift religious icons onto a pedestal. However, it sure as hell is not their place to tear such icons down.

But, the question isn't whether gov't. should defend its citizens from religious persecution, it should, but, whether the gov't. should be the one erecting, supporting and promoting these religious icons, especially to the exclusion of other religions?

Now, a return question to you...

Why does the left (some? many? most?) oppose the freedom of free expression of religion by pushing a PC, "let's not hurt anyone's feelings," agenda on conservative America? Why do they target those in power and question their faith? Why are they attacking the historical foundation of this country to try and "white-out" the references to God?

Speaking only for myself, I don't oppose religious freedom. I think you've missed my point. I want you and all others to be free to worship God, or not to, in any way you choose, and I would never, ever want you to be forced into taking part in any of my religious beliefs or practices, EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T MIND. It isn't about sparing your feelings, it's about my not having the right to assume that you don't know how you should live your faith or what faith it should be, nor should the gov't. When the gov't. places large religious icons in places of prominence or leads people in prayer, it in effect "chooses" one set of religious beliefs over all others and at least implicitly gives that religion favored status when the role of gov't. in religion should be neutral. We seem to understand the theory of impartiality in football when choosing officials for bowl games, why is it so hard with church/state?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Suspended teacher's aide sues employer over wearing cross on necklace

He said case law has shown that the state has an interest in preserving religious neutrality in schools.

The problem with not enforcing the ban, he said, is that children see the symbol and ask questions about it. That's fine for most people in a case involving a cross in a predominantly Christian community, Coad said. But what if someone wears a symbol that offends Christians, such as a pendant related to witchcraft. SO? What if they do ask questions, be it about Christiannity or witchcraft? Isn't a school supposed to be a place to learn about other cultures and beliefs?

The ban on religious garb in schools has been upheld by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania. In that case, a Muslim teacher from Philadelphia wanted to wear traditional garb including a head scarf. The court ruled in 1990 that she couldn't.

But McCarthy said in the lawsuit that religious symbols can't be banned unless there is evidence that they disrupt the operation of the school, and Nichol's cross, which is about an inch long, didn't cause any such disruption.

Nichol said yesterday that being asked to remove her cross is like being asked to remove a wedding ring. She also complained that religion is "systematically being removed from society."

Link To Article 2

WASHINGTON, DC -- A threat by an Alabama school to discipline an 11-year-old girl for wearing a cross necklace shows why you can't trust government schools to protect religious freedom, the Libertarian Party said today.

"Students go to school to learn -- but what kind of lesson do they learn when the government says that wearing a cross is a crime?" asked Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "It seems the lesson of the day in Alabama is Religious Intolerance 101."

Earlier this month, attorneys for Kandice Smith, a sixth-grader at Curry Middle School in Walker County, Alabama, filed a lawsuit in federal court to overturn what they called an "unconstitutional" dress code.

In August, the school banned cross necklaces as part of its new dress code -- claiming they are "gang symbols." School officials threatened to discipline Smith if she didn't hide the cross under her clothes.

But Smith's attorneys argue the policy "violates the free speech and free exercise rights [of Smith] by denying her the ability to express her faith through the visible wearing of the necklace." The lawsuit also charges that the school "demonstrates a hostility toward religion."

Okay, so the above articles, just two of a bajillion I found when I googled the topic, prove part of my above statements to be wrong - Christianity is not the only religion persecuted, altho of the articles I found, it and the Wiccaan religion WERE the two most common ones. (Ironic, isn't it?) But the basic premise of my position remains the same - everyone is SO WORRIED about offending someone, that people who want to express their faith, whatever it is, get into trouble for doing so, usually with the same government that is supposed to be protecting my right to worship as I please.

This comes from teh Anti-Defamation League website:

Link

Sample Scenario:

Fourth-grader Asks Teacher About Her Cross Necklace

Mrs. Carlson, a fourth grade teacher, wears a small cross necklace visible to her students. One of her students, Eric, notices the cross and asks her what it symbolizes. Mrs. Carlson responds: "I wear it as a symbol that Jesus died for our sins." Eric tells his parents that his teacher taught him that Jesus died for his sins. Eric's parents complain to Mrs. Carlson.

Was Mrs. Carlson correct to respond as she did?

No. While teachers may wear symbols of their faith, Mrs. Carlson should not have shared tenets of her religion with Eric. It would have been sufficient to say that the cross is an important symbol of her religion.

It sounds to me like Eric's parents are a bit uptight. The kid asked a question, the teacher answered within the precepts of her faith. She didn't "teach" him that, she didn't force him to memorize it and regurgitate it on a test. If the parents were any kind of parents, when he went home and told them that, they should have sat down with him and used this as an opportunity to explain that Mrs. Carlson is a Christian and that is what she believes, whereas they are Jewish/Muslim/Pagan/ Whatever and what they believe is something different. Use it as an opportunity to further their own faith with their child. Of if they are Atheist, tell little Eric that they don't believe like Mrs. Carlos, but that is okay, because they have that right in this country. They don't have to tell little Eric that Mrs. Carlon thinks his parents are godless heathens who are going straight to hell.

Again, in the rush to try and "de-religion" this country, basic human expression is being overwhelmed by the PC police. The case in Houston, where a Bible was displayed in a case outside the Hosuton Courthouse, paid for by private money as a memorial to the guy who started the Star of Hope Mission, is a perfect example. The City let them put the memorial there, but not one taxpayer dollar was spent on it. How does that suggest the City of Houston supports Christianity as an official religion?

[WarTim 3,456]

State SHOULD be seperate from Church. Nobody can EVER seperate Church from State.

President Bush is a Christian. As such, EVERY part of his life should be subject to the Lord.

p.s. Why haven't those libs gotten sandblasters and taken down every mention of God in D.C.? (Not to mention AL of the currency that must be destroyed ! ! !)

     

157220[/snapback]

But, do you believe that it is a thouroughly "one-way street" and that, sooner or later, religion would evolve from being the master to being the slave of the gov't?

That is the beauty of democracy. WE THE PEOPLE can throw the "bums" out every four years or, we can keep the good guys for four more years. (Don't look now but those darn conservatives control three branches and are workin' on the judicial!)

[Tiger Al 0]

Jenny, I think all of your examples point to one glaring fact: There is confusion among a lot of people as to what is permissable and what is not. In one example, it is fine for the TEACHER to wear a cross whereas in another it seemingly isn't for a student. While I don't know all of the particulars in each case, nor am I an attorney, I'd bet there is more to some of those cases than simply a teacher telling a perfectly innocent student to remove some religious icon.

Often times you run into people who, not because they hate Christians, "overenforce" rules because they're not sure of what the rule is. An example would be HIPAA laws. If you came to see me for an MRI and I wanted to get a study you'd had in Houston, I can contact the center and they'll send me what I need without my obtaining a release form from you. They are not breaching confidentiality because they are giving me information relevant to healthcare that I'm providing to you. I have had many times occasions where the center would NOT give me the info I was requesting because they felt that I needed a release form. Were they intentionally trying to make my job harder? No, they were just so paranoid of "HIPAA violations" that they went overboard to protect someone's privacy when what I was asking was perfectly legal.

I think this sometimes happens at schools. I really don't think the vast majority of school employees care if students wear religious items as long as they are not disruptive.

[Tiger Al 0]

BTW, Jenny, why would the people place the Bible at the Houston courthouse as a tribute to someone who founded the Star of Hope Mission? Why wouldn't they put it at the Star of Hope Mission office? Was it allowed to stay there or has it been moved?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

BTW, Jenny, why would the people place the Bible at the Houston courthouse as a tribute to someone who founded the Star of Hope Mission? Why wouldn't they put it at the Star of Hope Mission office? Was it allowed to stay there or has it been moved?

157266[/snapback]

Same reason why the Lincoln Memorial is in Washington DC and not in Illinois - it is in a public place where everyone can see it. A memorial in front of the homeless mission would not be seen by most people I know!!

The momument was on Harris Country property. The nearly 50-year old display was designed and erected by the Star of Hope Mission, a Houston-based Christian charity in memory of the late William Mosher, who had been an active member and longtime supporter of the homeless Mission. The Star of Hope Mission erected the memorial display in 1956 to honor the service of William Mosher, a man committed to serving the homeless. The Mission included the Bible in the display to convey that Mosher was a Christian and “Godly man” who helped others. The pages were opened to a verse in the Bible about helping others. Harris County did not pay for any of the improvements to the monument or the Bible, but has paid for the electricity that illuminates the monument since 1995 at a cost of $93.15 a year. The county argued that the display is a private expression of free speech by the mission and the county should not be held responsible for its contents. The Bible has been removed pending the resolution of the Supreme Court case.

Link

[Tiger Al 0]

Same reason why the Lincoln Memorial is in Washington DC and not in Illinois - it is in a public place where everyone can see it. A memorial in front of the homeless mission would not be seen by most people I know!!

But, Lincoln's monument is in Washington because he was a president of the US, so it makes sense. Was this Mosher a judge, DA or attorney? If not, it would seem to make as much sense to put the display in front of the bus station or a hospital.

[AURaptor 1,125]

This conservative whole heartily is in favor of seperation of Church and State.

[AUloggerhead 2,244]

I've always wondered, and have asked here a few times with no response, why conservatives (some? many? most?) want to break the barrier between church and state? I'm not talking about a congressman using his religious beliefs to guide his vote on, say, abortion. I don't have a problem with that. Everyone uses some belief system to guide their actions.

I'm talking about the right's agenda to have governmental institutions endorse and even promote a particular religious sect by way of large religious icons prominently placed in public, government buildings, forced prayer, whether it be in public schools or courtrooms, and the general overall desire to politicize religion.

Maybe a shorter way to ask the question is, why is separation of church and state wrong?

157168[/snapback]

I knew we kinda sorta had this discussion before: Link to Dec 2003 topic

My viewpoints haven't changed from then. I see a conflict with the current draconian government response to any kind of display of religious symbols in public buildings: a teacher can't wear a cross around her neck and answer truthfully why, a Bible study group can't meet on school grounds after school like any other club or organized group, a valedictorian has her speech previewed by school administrators to remove any mention of God, kindergarteners are prohibited from singing secular Christmas carols in their "Winter Festival" concert. All of these are restrictions imposed by the government. Why? Aren't these restrictions also contrary to the 1st Amendment in terms of both free speech & freedom to worship?

I am for maintaing the separation of Church and State. I do not want our federal government imposing a religion on anybody -- ever. At the same time, I can't see how the government can be guilty of imposing a religion on someone if a group of 5-year olds sing, "Joy to the World, the Lord has come" in December within the confines of a public school building. Yo. That's a leap of imagination to think that in any way represents Congress passing a law establishing a religion. This kind of logic escapes me.

I spent some time in a true theocracy once, Saudi Arabia from Dec 90 to Mar 91. Our country is no theocracy and we are in no danger of ever becoming one. It's not even close.

[AURainman 6]

Here's another question to ponder.

In High School, I was in the school choir. For concerts, we would sing religious pieces. Why? Because they were difficult, complex arrangements of historically relevent art. Music was kept alive through the church.

So, to deny the students (us at that time) the exposure to such complex art, would be a disservice to the class. However, to sing these in a public forum would violate the PC "separation of church and state."

Alos, we would end each concert with...

May the road rise to meet you.

May the wind be always at your back.

May the sun shine warm upon your face,

May the rain fall soft upon your feet.

And until we meet again

May GOD Hold you

In the hollow of his hand.

Should my school be shut down for hurting someone's feelings? Should the government step in and force their hand upon this class? Where is the dividing line for government in such a case?

Any act against the school can be viewed as a tyranical dictator's harsh rule. (Similar to what Facist regimes)

No consequences for the school, implies an act of establishing religion in school.

Where do you stand on government's role?