Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

hyper426 wrote:

Yeah!? Since you are the more anti-theist voice on this post (a very prestigious position, I might add) how do you feel about the ten commandments issue in particular?

Me?

I think the Ten Commandments has no place in any government building unless it's the private chambers of an individual. The Ten Commandments has no other purpose than to preach a set of principles specificly derrived from religion, and from a particular religious dogma. It especially has no business in the public foyer of a courthouse, where its ponderous presence implies a set of principles ascribed to by the government of the courthouse of the foyer in which it is placed.

I think Foxfyre's treatment of "foundation of religion" is to loose to be fair, and panders to the desires of the religious to be acknowledged in government, more than it does to the principle of separation, and to the reality of how "association" with iconature implies acceptance.

Recently, Judge Scalia invoked the fact that the Pledge of Allegience had the words "Under God" in it, as supporting doctrine for the religious foundation of our country. He went on to list "in God we trust" on our currency, and various religious references on public buildings as evidence that our founding fathers wanted religion in government. However, those items he listed were all placed there after the fact (our country's foundation), and this alone is proof that reference to religion is in effect establishment of religion because we now have a supreme court justice using those instances to support policy decisions. There can be no better example of why government should keep religious references and icons at a distance which respects the "intent" of separation of church and state.

0 Replies

Ros writes

Quote:

Ok, then in your opinion, do "religious" objects constitue an establishment of religion?

As a general rule, no I do not believe religious objects constitute an establishment of religion. Nor do the Bible verses and other religious images that are engraved onto various surfaces of the Supreme Court building and other government buildings in Washington DC and on various courthouses around the country. A cross on a county shield depicting part of the area history does not constiutute an establishment of religion. The large bronze statue of a pagan Roman god in the main hall of our municipally owned airport does not constitute an establishment of religion.

So long as no branch of or individual in government attempts to impose a requirement of any particular religious belief or non belief and so long as there is no reward and no consequence for whatever a person believes or does not believe, there is no government establishment of religion.

As far as the Ten Commandments statue issue in that courthouse is concerned, I think it ridiculous that the judge defended it on the grounds that he did--had he defended it as an art object I would have supported him-- I think it ridiculous that suit was filed to have it removed. The presence of religious objects in a courthouse might signal a possible bias on the part of a judge in some cases and could prompt an attorney to request a change of venue, but I can't see how that violates anybody's rights. If anything it is truth in advertising.

I have no problem if the Ten Commandments are hung in a classroom--they are meaningful to both the Jewish and Christian faiths--so long as a Hindu child could have a symbol or writing of his/her faith, a Moslem child could have something from the Quran or whatever. The only problem would be if a teacher attempted to indoctrinate the children with religious belief or demonstrated any bias toward a child for his/her belief or non belief. Also it would cross the line if one particular religious faith item was allowed and others denied. And for a teacher to tell the kids they must believe in God or Allah or Buddha or a Hindu god or that they are wrong in what they in fact do or don't believe would prompt a very quick demand from me for that teacher's hasty exodus from his/her profession.

As I see it, it is not the expression of religious faith or any objects, secular or religious, but the principle is that government shall not establish any religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. There was zero intent on the part of the founders that those in government not be religious or that they should not express religious beliefs. They just can't insist or discriminate against anybody else.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

Schools would have a problem deciding which version of the ten commandments to hang in classrooms.

There are several versions: Jewish, King James, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.

0 Replies

Very true Wandel. And I have no problem with the classroom not hanging any version or picking one or putting them all up there. That latter would probably be the most educational. Actually I'm pretty sure the 10 commandments did hang at least in some of my classrooms when I was a kid and I don't remember any child suddenly speaking in tongues or demonstrating any other extremely religious behavior as a result of it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Very true Wandel. And I have no problem with the classroom not hanging any version or picking one or putting them all up there.

I can see it now, all of our kids classes, littered with every religious icon and incedental imaginable in a hopeless attempt to keep everything balanced. Do you really think that such a system won't turn into a giant free-for-all with every religion fighting for equal time for every kid that walks into that classroom? As McEnroe would say, "you can't be serious" Smile

Foxfyre wrote:

Actually I'm pretty sure the 10 commandments did hang at least in some of my classrooms when I was a kid and I don't remember any child suddenly speaking in tongues or demonstrating any other extremely religious behavior as a result of it.

You do realize that statement completely misses the point, right?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Also it would cross the line if one particular religious faith item was allowed and others denied.

So you would leave a spare place for those without religion?

Even here in Germany, where religion (or 'ethics' for those, who don't want to attend those classes) is taught regularily in schools, no-one ever had got the idea to place the ten commandments somwhere, even not in schools run by the churches.

0 Replies

The point isn't whether the Ten Commandments should or should not be posted in a classroom. The point is whether it is legal to do so. By my understanding of the strict interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is is absolutely legal to do so. It is not an establishment of religion so long as no religion is favored and no person is rewarded or incurs consequences for what they believe about the document posted.

So far as the clutter in the classroom is concerned, I would leave that up to a teacher's discretion and I doubt any teacher we want in the classroom would overstep the bounds of propriety on an issue like that. So far as I know, New Mexico teachers decide what goes up on the walls of the classrooms.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The point isn't whether the Ten Commandments should or should not be posted in a classroom. The point is whether it is legal to do so. By my understanding of the strict interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is is absolutely legal to do so. It is not an establishment of religion so long as no religion is favored and no person is rewarded or incurs consequences for what they believe about the document posted.

As noted previously in this thread, we disagree on what constitutes an establishment.

Foxfyre wrote:

So far as the clutter in the classroom is concerned, I would leave that up to a teacher's discretion and I doubt any teacher we want in the classroom would overstep the bounds of propriety on an issue like that. So far as I know, New Mexico teachers decide what goes up on the walls of the classrooms.

So now you're going to let the teachers decide what goes up on the walls and what doesn't. Is this a personal preference of the teachers, or is it a peference which is stated by the school? Do you really think that this type of system won't get out of control, with parents and school boards pulling things back and forth. I think it's naive to believe that a system such as you describe won't be abused to the point of chaos, further wasting valuable school funds and time.

0 Replies

Well yes Ros. I think a teacher entrusted with the care, welfare, and education of my children can be entrusted to decide how to arrange his/her classroom including what gets put up on the wall. So far as I know, that is the way it has always been until the ACLU sued to forbid certain things from appearing in classrooms.

And no we probably won't agree on what constitutes establishment of religion.

0 Replies

Fox, I am really starting to warm-up to you. And hey, where's Frank? Anyway, I agree with you on what establishes religion, as you seem to see it. What about teachers putting objects specific to their own religion on their desk, and teaching about them to specific students who enquire? hmmm.....

0 Replies

ya know......I never realized how big my thighs were Laughing

0 Replies

But boy are you stacked Hyper!!!! Smile

Quote:

What about teachers putting objects specific to their own religion on their desk, and teaching about them to specific students who enquire? hmmm.....

To explain to students that the 10 commandments are a list of moral statements advocated by Christians and Jews, though they are not exclusive to Christians and Jews, violates no constiutional principle and would not be inappropriate. For a teacher to have a cherished religious relic on her desk and to answer a child's question about what it was would not cross the line either. I knew what faith (or lack thereof) of most of my teachers but never had one who attempted to 'indoctrinate' any of us with their beliefs.

Again it goes down to the integrity of the teachers. If I'm going to entrust my child to an hour or several hours in the care of a teacher, it would be ludicrous to assume that same teacher would not know what is and is not appropriate to put up on a classroom wall or place on her desk. And I would assume the principle in charge of the school or the superintendent of the school would take measures to deal with that teacher if such teacher did do something inappropriate.

Matters of religion are no different than any potential for a teacher to be racially or ideologically biased or bigoted or to err in interpretations of history or sociology or whatever. We hope they do their jobs well. But all of us survived our schooling despite having a 'strange' teacher or two. The paranoia over any mention or illustration of religious belief is just that, I think: paranoia.

I don't want teacher indoctrinating their students with any religion or with any ideology of any kind. I want teachers to teach their students the very best information available about everything and teach thier students to reason and think critically about what they learn. And I trust most teachers to be that kind of teacher.

So, the stuff a teacher deems appropriate to put up on his/her classroom wall is most likely going to be appropriate.

0 Replies

Stacked is good, right? Laughing

So, do you think the government should act the same way? Should we trust our government to be a good judge of what is allowed, thereby we would truly NOT be practicing separation of church and state, or at any rate, not practicing it strictly. hmmm......I like this, and I need to make my ENTIRE case tonight, so load away on this post, because I really find it helpful in giving me diverse perspectives

0 Replies

Foxfyre and Frank could give you much more material. However, I think the government can be trusted. When a lower court ruled that "under God" in the pledge was unconstitutional, both Democratic and Republican senators were dismayed. When the "under God" issue came to the Supreme Court, they reversed the lower court but postponed addressing the constitutional issue.

In earlier cases, the Supreme Court has tried to specify a test on what exactly would be an establishment of religion.

0 Replies

well there are those jurists that believe in a "living constitution" and those that believe in a rigid constitution. I'm not at all sure that the constitution remains a relevant document in either context. I'm very sure that any religion is the antithesis of equitable personal diginity and freedom.

0 Replies

hyper wrote

Quote:

So, do you think the government should act the same way? Should we trust our government to be a good judge of what is allowed, thereby we would truly NOT be practicing separation of church and state, or at any rate, not practicing it strictly. hmmm......I like this, and I need to make my ENTIRE case tonight, so load away on this post, because I really find it helpful in giving me diverse perspectives

We almost have to trust the government to be a good judge of what is allowed don't we? We elect representatives to go to Washington to express our point of view. Some representatives are better than others in supporting the wishes and views of their constituents just as some teachers are better than others at keeping personal bias out of their lesson plans. When a teacher teaches what I consider to be inappropriate and my complaint does not fix the problem, I take my children elsewhere to be educated. When my elected representative does not represent me, I do everything in my power to oust him and elect somebody who will.

The check and balance in this whole system is of course our Constitution which never, in no place, at no time ever mandated separation of Church and State. What the Constiution mandates is that the State cannot require us to believe any religious doctrine and can neither reward us or punish us for the religious beliefs that we hold. Further the State cannot prohibit any citizen the free exercise of his/her religious beliefs so long as such beliefs do not violate the rights of others and that guarantee applies to you, me, and every citizen including the President of the United States.

The Constitution does not in any way restrict our elected representatives or any government employee or contractor from speaking out on his/her religious beliefs or making policy influenced by his/her religious beliefs. If you do not want such influence in government, best then to elect only athiests or persons who will pledge to not pray before casting a vote, etc.
Even a cursory reading of the Federalist papers makes it very clear that our founders expected those in government to be religious and rather thought the Republic would not endure if they were not. The national Christmas tree is perfectly legal. The prayer that initiates the opening of every House and Senate session is perfectly legal. It is ironic that our elected leaders can have public prayers that some would deny to the rest of us.

In my view the Constitution would prohibit installation of a manger scene on your lawn if you objected to same, but in no way does it prohibit one being placed on the courthouse lawn. The only problem would be if the County mandated that ONLY a Christian (or any other religion's) symbol could be placed on the courthouse lawn. The County has full right to say no symbols may be placed on the courthouse lawn, but I think it crowds the intended line if it mandates than only non-religious symbols may be placed on the courthouse lawn.

The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to be free from exposure to religion in any public setting. It gives us the right to be religious or not religious as we prefer. Everything else can be left up to the people to decide.

(Oh, and yes, 'stacked' is a good thing.) Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

We almost have to trust the government to be a good judge of what is allowed don't we? We elect representatives to go to Washington to express our point of view. Some representatives are better than others in supporting the wishes and views of their constituents just as some teachers are better than others at keeping personal bias out of their lesson plans. When a teacher teaches what I consider to be inappropriate and my complaint does not fix the problem, I take my children elsewhere to be educated. When my elected representative does not represent me, I do everything in my power to oust him and elect somebody who will.

The check and balance in this whole system is of course our Constitution which never, in no place, at no time ever mandated separation of Church and State. What the Constiution mandates is that the State cannot require us to believe any religious doctrine and can neither reward us or punish us for the religious beliefs that we hold. Further the State cannot prohibit any citizen the free exercise of his/her religious beliefs so long as such beliefs do not violate the rights of others and that guarantee applies to you, me, and every citizen including the President of the United States.

The Constitution does not in any way restrict our elected representatives or any government employee or contractor from speaking out on his/her religious beliefs or making policy influenced by his/her religious beliefs. If you do not want such influence in government, best then to elect only athiests or persons who will pledge to not pray before casting a vote, etc.
Even a cursory reading of the Federalist papers makes it very clear that our founders expected those in government to be religious and rather thought the Republic would not endure if they were not. The national Christmas tree is perfectly legal. The prayer that initiates the opening of every House and Senate session is perfectly legal. It is ironic that our elected leaders can have public prayers that some would deny to the rest of us.

In my view the Constitution would prohibit installation of a manger scene on your lawn if you objected to same, but in no way does it prohibit one being placed on the courthouse lawn. The only problem would be if the County mandated that ONLY a Christian (or any other religion's) symbol could be placed on the courthouse lawn. The County has full right to say no symbols may be placed on the courthouse lawn, but I think it crowds the intended line if it mandates than only non-religious symbols may be placed on the courthouse lawn.

The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to be free from exposure to religion in any public setting. It gives us the right to be religious or not religious as we prefer. Everything else can be left up to the people to decide.

Honestly, I don't think the government should decide what is right and what is wrong. We, as citizens of the United States were entrusted with the right to have our choice in almost all matters.Plus, our senators don't always express the views of the general public. The senator in question could in fact just express the views of a small group of people in has advantage, then the larger general public's disadvantageous opinions.

I agree with Foxfyre on the decision to try to get out a bad representative, but I don't think that a teacher should be punished by what she was told to teach. For all we know, the teacher could, in fact, just be teaching what the principal or superintendent instructed them to. So, if a teacher did teach something I didn't want my children to know( If i had them), I'd find out the source of the problem first before jumping to conclusions. THEN, I'd have the senator take action to fix the action.

Plus, the constitution really isn't the "whole check and balance system" of government.Honestly, If you think about it...the people really are. Our opinions govern the government's actions, which could also influence the Supreme Courts.

(Wow my first meaningful post...wonder if it works?)

0 Replies

Welcome, welcome Wolf, and yes, your first post works great.

In a Republic form of government however, the people don't make the laws and regulations, their elected officials do, and that's why we are pretty much at the mercy of what our elected officals decide. That's why it is so very important to put the right people into office rather than just putting up somebody 'who can win' which too often has been the case lately.

We the citizen do have the right to voice our disapproval about what our elected officials do, and we can vote them out of they displease enough of the people.

I am a libertarian (little 'L') at heart though and firmly believe the people should be able to democratically decide anything not mandated by the constitution however.

So far as that teacher goes, if she is a bad teacher, the parents' complaints should be enough to oust her (or him). If s/he is simply doing what she is instructed and my complaint falls on deaf ears, she won't be fired. As I said I will then place my children elsewhere in an environment I consider to be more conducive to a good education.

All these tie in though with issues of separation of Church and State and what that means (or does not mean).

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

I would only make a slight change in your response to wolfofheaven. I believe U.S. citizens have a wider influence than just voting. For example, both Democratic and Republican congressmen gave strong support to keeping "under God" in the pledge because they are aware of how their constituents think. Even the Supreme Court backed off from applying the establishment clause in the pledge case because it too is aware of public opinion.

0 Replies

Woops, sorry Fox, I was thinking that you were referring to me having "stacked" thighs Laughing

When you say you would remove your children to a different environment, would that be like emigrating out of America?

Also, I agree that religion should be allowed in state, when the representatives are correctly representing their voters through that religious influence. If not, they WILL be voted out. ahh... the benefits of frequent elections

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know