5
   

Separation of State and Church?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 12:31 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
There are scientists who believe in evolution and there are scientists who believe in creationism.

Not really.
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 12:33 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Many Masons are Jews, Islamic, Taoists, and Unitarians. The only requirement of the Masons is a belief in the great architect---God has nine billion names.

Rap
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 12:35 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

That doesn't equate to not believing in a creator.

No, but the thrust of your constitutional argument comes from the claim that our creator is who we got our human rights from. But since our creator is evolution, and since evolution cannot bestow rights, that thrust fizzles out. Or rather, it would fizzle out if the Declaration of Independence was in any way part of the US constitution or of US law---which it isn't.
Pukka Sahib
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 12:36 pm
@Thomas,
Evolution is a fact; indeed, it is etched in stone. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has been established by proof based upon empirical evidence and verified by genetic experimentation on plants and animals, and overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. Contrast to this are the claims of "Creationists" paraded as science under the rubric of "Intelligent Design" that is based on the assumption that life was created, which, of necessity, assumes the existence of a "Creator." Such argument is mere speculation and inconsistent with scientific method, for it is nothing more than a presumption that is not evidence, much less proof. The same arguments and challenges to evolution advanced by the proponents of "Intelligent Design" were proved to have no support in the scientific community and ruled to be religious doctrine and not science. SeeTammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). To posit creationism as a theological explanation is one thing; but to posture it as science is unsupportable if not outright dishonest, and only reflects discredit upon religious belief.
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 12:39 pm
@Thomas,
Evolution is the creator in your mind, not in the minds of millions of Americans. You're gonna have to live with that fact.

I still maintain government does not give us our rights. The US Constitution tells us what government cannnot do to us, not what government allows us to do. Government gets its authority from the people, the consent of the governed.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 12:46 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
Evolution is the creator in your mind, not in the minds of millions of Americans. You're gonna have to live with that fact.

No. You will have to live with the fact that millions of Americans are wrong about the facts of evolution---be it out of ignorance, or self-deception, or deception by others, or a bit of all three.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:
I still maintain government does not give us our rights. The US Constitution tells us what government cannnot do to us, not what government allows us to do.

Finally, a point on which you and I agree. And returning to your original question, one thing government cannot do to us is to foist monotheism unto a class of religiously-diverse high-school seniors. If the facts of the New-Jersey case constitute such foisting, that's an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 12:50 pm
@Thomas,
We have freedom of religion in America. If people want to believe in a creator then you're gonna have to live with it. We don't care if you believe we are wrong. What you believe is not the issue. We are free to believe what we want and you can't do anything about it.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 12:53 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
We are free to believe what we want and you can't do anything about it.

But you are not free to foist your belief onto high-school students. And that's what you do when you make them choose between not celebrating their prom and having to celebrate it in a church.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 03:22 pm
Some facts may have been blurred about the specific case in New Jersey:

The ACLU is not requesting that the graduation be moved ---- only that the 20 foot cross above the entrance be covered. ACLU is also requesting the covering of two electric signs that read “Holiness to the Lord” and “So Be Ye Holy.”

The auditorium is owned by a Methodist organization called the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. It is the Methodist organization that is refusing to cover the cross and the two signs.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 04:16 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

What do you mean "no one ever bought it"? Millions of Americans in our history have bought it.
Nonsense... We are not created equal, and not one person of ability accepts that he is the equal of anyone without ability... The political equality which we have by agreement is hardly agreeable to anyone with anything, and political equality cannot stand in the face of economic inequality... The dummest ass who inherits all his money will think he holds it by virtue rather than the good nature of those without anything to leave their children... Just as in Plato's Athens, the best thought they should run society without ever being able to say who was the best and what made them so...

Now science does show we are equal, but also the approximation of apes just as 99% is approximately 100%... We are that similar, and far less unsimilar to each other... And yet our differences though slight we build into a justification for prejudice and discrimination... Though very often the poor are as determined as the rich, and intelliegent, they are though unequal, and so unworthy of their own political entitlements... They should be made to understand that first, Athens destroyed its democracy, and then it destroyed its society... The rich were certainly rich, but without the support of the poor they could offer no defense to those who wanted what was theirs... So it is here, that the rich refuse to pay for their own defense, and instead expect the poor to defend their wealth and pay for the privilage, and lose every political right and entitlement in the process of being reduced to slavery... So no one buys equality... I realize more than most how worthless are the rich, and yet even I show them undue respect... My nose is brown all the way to my shoulders... No toilet in any mansion has kissed more rich ass than I...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 06:43 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
The auditorium is owned by a Methodist organization called the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. It is the Methodist organization that is refusing to cover the cross and the two signs.

That's fine. The Methodists are just exercising their religion freely, consistent with the First Amendment. But given that they do, how does the school's decision to keep using this room not violate the non-establishment clause?
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 07:09 pm
@Thomas,
They are not having a church service during the prom. No one is recruiting. No one complained for 70 years and now one person complains and expects the world to revolve around them. This is a free nation and there is no constitutional right to not be offended by someone else's freedom.
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 07:11 pm
@wandeljw,
Of course they should refuse to cover the cross. How can anyone in the name of liberty force someone to cover up a cross?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 07:42 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Of course they should refuse to cover the cross. How can anyone in the name of liberty force someone to cover up a cross?


If they charge money to a public high school to use their auditorium, they should cover up religious symbols so that there is no violation of the establishment clause.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 10:15 am
@wandeljw,
There is no violation of the establishment clause. Congress is not even involved.
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 10:38 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Of course they should refuse to cover the cross. How can anyone in the name of liberty force someone to cover up a cross?


If they charge money to a public high school to use their auditorium, they should cover up religious symbols so that there is no violation of the establishment clause.


According to the establishment clause, this person rights were not violated. This person is actually trying to violate the church's rights because they wanna whine about it. That clause was inacted so to prevent the government from establishing a national religion or the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. Congress wasn't involved in any way nor was there any goverment involved what-so-ever. This clause would actually work for the church, by covering up those signs and the cross, you would also "cover up" their freedoms. That kid didn't have to go there that day, but chose to. Those views weren't forced upon them, they didn't have to knell in front of the cross or go through any religious doctrine or participate in anything that would be against their own faith.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 10:46 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
There is no violation of the establishment clause. Congress is not even involved.

It doesn't have to be, because the 14th Amendment makes (most of) the Bill of Rights enforceable against the States. Technically, the ACLU would be charging the state of New Jersey with a 14th-Amendment violation, not a 1st-Amendment violation.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 11:44 am
@Chights47,
Chights47 wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Of course they should refuse to cover the cross. How can anyone in the name of liberty force someone to cover up a cross?


If they charge money to a public high school to use their auditorium, they should cover up religious symbols so that there is no violation of the establishment clause.


According to the establishment clause, this person rights were not violated. This person is actually trying to violate the church's rights because they wanna whine about it. That clause was inacted so to prevent the government from establishing a national religion or the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. Congress wasn't involved in any way nor was there any goverment involved what-so-ever. This clause would actually work for the church, by covering up those signs and the cross, you would also "cover up" their freedoms. That kid didn't have to go there that day, but chose to. Those views weren't forced upon them, they didn't have to knell in front of the cross or go through any religious doctrine or participate in anything that would be against their own faith.


The establishment clause is not a right. It is a prohibition. Government is prohibited from endorsing a religion. A public high school is a government-operated school.

No one is "covering up" their freedoms. If the Methodist organization wants to make money from a government-operated school, the temporary covering of religious symbols would help their customer (the school) from violating the establishment clause.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 11:46 am
Wandel and I agree. Final proof that judgment day is upon us.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 11:51 am
@Thomas,
I forgot what date it was today. Now I am worried that I will be left behind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 09:44:30