American United or AU inforcing seperation of church and state

STNGfan;20716 wrote:

Yes, they can, and they do.

Teachers cannot tell the whole class to say under God. It is told without God in it but if someone wishes to say under God in the class they can because of freedom of religion but the teacher cannot direct the whole class to say under God.

So you are both half right.

Also in during the plegence of allengience people no longer have to stand or put their hand over their heart when saying it. we are now to sit silently and do not have to say the words or stand or hold our hands over our hearts if we so wish.

Also after graduations ceremonies they can not longer ask for everyone for a moment of prayer. It is endorsing religion.

See ACLU...victory lawsuits.

If your school or college are still doing these things it is only a matter of time before they are caught and are forced by the law to stop.
:peace:

I know I know we are destroying your great country of intolerance and monopoly of christiantiy. It is sad I know...:dunno:

Also after graduations ceremonies they can not longer ask for everyone for a moment of prayer. It is endorsing religion.

If your school or college are still doing these things it is only a matter of time before they are caught and are forced by the law to stop.

it is endorsing one religion over another and that is against the contitution. Prayer is for christians. Buddhist do not pray they meditiate and Hindus do not pray like Christians do.
If the schools wish to say have a moment of silence that is acceptable and then everyone can do what ever makes them feel comfortable.
the supreme courts make the law absolute. Are you saying the supreme courts decisions means nothing because they happen to disagree with your religion? I think the supreme courts are far more educated than yourself in these situations.

praying is for christians and only 80 percent are christians. It unacceptable to make the other 20 percent feel uncomfortable and out of place by telling everyone to pray. The 20 percent should not be made to feel strange because they are not christian.
This is why a school leader cannot ask the whole group to pray assuming they are all christians. This is favoring one religion over another and is inconsiderate of the other 20 percent.

Now if they want to say...give a moment for prayer, silence or medititation I will accept that but simply claiming for people to bow in prayer while 20 percent is not christians is unaccpetable.

Pray in Church where it belongs.

it is endorsing one religion over another and that is against the contitution.

the supreme courts make the law absolute.

I think the supreme courts are far more educated than yourself in these situations.

It unacceptable to make the other 20 percent feel uncomfortable and out of place by telling everyone to pray.

The 20 percent should not be made to feel strange because they are not christian.

This is why a school leader cannot ask the whole group to pray assuming they are all christians. This is favoring one religion over another and is inconsiderate of the other 20 percent.

Pray in Church where it belongs.

It doesn't have to be freedom from religion if you Christian supremist would just share the plateform with other religion. What the hell is wrong with saying "let take a moment for prayer, meditiation or reflection"? Why can you not acknowledge other faiths and their needs to be reckonized? I have no problem with prayer in school as long as my kid can practice wiccan spells, buddhist can meditate in the lotus position and muslim kids and put down their blankets and kneel to the rising sun but you Christian Supremist wont accept that. You wont acknowlege and accept your children exposed to other religions but you try to force non-believers to watch you pray to your God in school. It is unacceptable. How would you feel if Muslims came and impose Sharia law on the United States and their religion infiltrated the constitution and you were forced to only pray to allah and kneel to allah? That Islam makes laws for you even though you are not Muslim. You wouldn't like that too much would you. Why should we?

as for the law. Sounds like you are an anarchist... Humans make the laws in the United States..Not God. If you want God to make laws I suggest you go to the middle east and live there where theology and politics are one.

You are not above the human law just because you hide behind God. In the united states human law trumps gods law and I am for one glad.

Good luck with all your fines and jail time and living in 18th century. Blech.. I plan on progressing not regressing thank you.

It is unacceptable.

How would you feel if Muslims came and impose Sharia law on the United States and their religion infiltrated the constitution and you were forced to only pray to allah and kneel to allah?

That Islam makes laws for you even though you are not Muslim.

as for the law. Sounds like you are an anarchist... Humans make the laws in the United States..Not God. If you want God to make laws I suggest you go to the middle east and live there where theology and politics are one.

You are not above the human law just because you hide behind God. In the united states human law trumps gods law and I am for one glad.

Good luck with all your fines and jail time and living in 18th century. Blech.. I plan on progressing not regressing thank you.

STNGfan, you'll realize that some people here do not want freedom if it isn't inline with their views, yet will piss and moan if their views are deemed to being encrouched upon, typical run of the mill hypocriscy.

lap 10 is in the books.

So your against tolerance and you against womens rights and equality.

What do you see wrong with that. You don't have to condone homosexuality in your home but face it they are not going away and your child needs to be able to be "Civil" with them even if they grow up not believing it is an ok thing to do. All our schools are doing is teaching tolerance...not acceptance. Jesus loved homosexuals unconditionally sinning or not. He did not condone the behavior but he did tolerate it.

As for womens rights... what do you have to fear from a dominate women? Why can't a women have power and presidge? Why can't a women run the household? Me thinks men like you are afraid of sharing power and wish to have someone to belittle and order around.

Ego issues.

Oh snap, what zinger!!!! I bet you can type that in your sleep.

Okay, first of all, I don't have kids. Schools that teach 'tolerance' for homosexuals (I've never heard of such a school that does that as a practice myself, or, for that matter, one that does not say 'one nation under God' or stand with their hands over their hearts during the pledge of allegiance) teach that it is acceptable to be a homosexual and probably that they should have 'equal rights' which means marriage (not a right, a religious tradition, as it is practiced in the U.S.) I don't care about civil unions with equal rights, but why are they so bent on marriage if they can have that. Make laws that say 'gays can be married', and sooner or later, someone could use that to force a church to marry two men or women.

And I don't have a problem with women being equal, that doesn't mean that femenist groups can't be propaganda distrubuters.

I'm sorry, but someone anti-Christian and anti-religious like you is not someone who I want to defend my freedom of religion. Reminds me of the President of my region's ACLU chapter sending an editorial letter to one of the local newspapers during an argument about the ACLU, taunting Christians and mocking Christianity with a condescending attitude.

I'm sorry, but someone anti-Christian and anti-religious like you is not someone who I want to defend my freedom of religion.

There is nothing wrong with endorsing religion, what is supposedly illegal is the promotion of one particular religion. But according to the Constitution only Congress is prohibited from doing so not any body else?
Will they be sued by the government or by the ACLU and there cohorts? Will they be stopped by an actual law or by the courts interpretation/precedent?

I would say this is the root of the matter. It is not YOUR freedom of religion, it is EVERYONES freedom of religion. You, and christianiaty do not hold sole proprietorship to freedom, or freedom of religion. Get over yourselves.

STNGfan, you'll realize that some people here do not want freedom if it isn't inline with their views, yet will piss and moan if their views are deemed to being encrouched upon, typical run of the mill hypocriscy.

I am sorry but I disagree. Europe is doing just fine as a secular nation. Christians may have the majority but that does not make this a 'Christian nation" as the Republicans voting in the Republicans in the white house does not make use a Republican country.
Fight for the soul of America. I am sorry but that is dictatorship not democracy. You want Americans to be forced to live by your bible. This is a theocracy not a democracy.
Our forfathers made it very clear that this nation is not for a christian nation.

Quotes from John Adams second president of the United States

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816"

Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814, from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816, from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief


Thomas Jefferson quotes Third president of the United States

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 (capitalization of the word god is retained per original; see Positive Atheism's Historical Section)

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

The 'Wall of Separation,' Again:
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)

Albery Einstein
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
-- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

[Excerpt]
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

But I guess the words of our forfathers and a genius means absolutly nothing.