scary little changes

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

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Intro to the Bil of Rights:

Quote:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

Obviously, I meant "intro to the Declaration of Independence", not the Bill of Rights.

(Darn system won't let me edit my own posts)

0 Replies

LInk

"Separation of Church and State":

This expression, "Separation of Church and State" never appears neither in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights, nor in the Declaration of Independence... it is usually brought out from the First Amendment:

The Bill of Rights (Amendments of the Constitution):

First Amendment:

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

The "Separation of Church and State" is brought from the first two statements which contains two religion clauses:

1- The Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion";
2- and the Free Exercise Clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

We hear often about "separation of church and state", generally when someone wants to take the Ten Commandments off the walls of a public place, or when someone wants to take the word "God" off the Pledge...

But, first of all, look at what it does not say. The first amendment doesn't even use the term "separation of church and state."

Second, what it says is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Our founding fathers were British subjects at one time, and England had a national church, of which the monarch was the titular head, while the Archbishop of Canterbury was the theological leader... and they were well aware of the prejudice and discrimination and wars based on religion in England and in most of Europe.

So, they wanted to make sure that in the America the Congress shall not make a law establishing a single religion on the land, but to have a nation where anyone can practice freely any believe or religion he may want.. without any advantage or discrimination social or economical due to his religious believes or practices.

I read the First Amendment to guarantee my right to free speech as a Christian that guarantees that I can talk or pray in public if I so desire, and so can any Jew or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist or Wiccan or whatever... and we should respect and love each other, no mater what religion anyone practices.

And, of course, this "free speech" includes the right of every American to display in public a symbolic item of his religion or believes: A Christian nativity or a cross, a Jewish star or a menorah, or any Muslim or Hindu or Atheist or Wiccan or whatever symbol...

The First Amendment makes no mention of removing any religious item from a private property in order to avoid "offending" someone.

It does not mention forbidding prayer in schools or in public places.

0 Replies

It does say God in some state constitutions according to that link.

0 Replies

Husker wrote:

I read the First Amendment to guarantee my right to free speech as a Christian that guarantees that I can talk or pray in public if I so desire, and so can any Jew or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist or Wiccan or whatever... and we should respect and love each other, no mater what religion anyone practices.

And, of course, this "free speech" includes the right of every American to display in public a symbolic item of his religion or believes: A Christian nativity or a cross, a Jewish star or a menorah, or any Muslim or Hindu or Atheist or Wiccan or whatever symbol...

The First Amendment makes no mention of removing any religious item from a private property in order to avoid "offending" someone.

You are confused about what the issue is. I think we all agree with the statements above.

We don't say that you can't pray in public. We don't say that you aren't free to worship as you see fit. (incidently even the ACLU supports the right of students to pray in schools, public prayer in general and the freedom of worship.)

The problem and the controversy are with state sponsored religion which the First Amendment certainly addresses.

Students are free to preach or pray or scream to God. Schools as government agencies aren't.

You are free to put a religious symbol on private property. Public (i.e. government) property should be free from a state sponsored religion.

If you are arguing that a school should be able to have official religious ceremonies-- or that state officials should be able to mandate relious imagery on the public property they control... that is one thing (and I will disagree).

But you don't seem to be arguing that-- in fact I don't think even the ACLU has a problem with what you are saying.

Go ahead and pray.... We all agree it is your right as long as you are not leading one as a government official.

0 Replies

husker wrote:

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

It speaks for itself.

But I read it as follows: Citizens have the right to do what they want in private or on private property, but the govenment must remain neutral (secular) in order for all citizens to be represented fairly.

We can argue the various levels of "establishment" when placing various small phrases in all manner of public documents and buildings, but one thing is absolutely clear; placing *no* references to religion on documents and in buildings is absolute and perfect. In that way, *no* particular religion, and even religion itself, can be established by the government.

And as a result, everyone will be free to worship as they choose, or not to warship at all. Government must be secular, in order for that people under that government to be free.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

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

It speaks for itself.

But I read it as follows: Citizens have the right to do what they want in private or on private property, but the govenment must remain neutral (secular) in order for all citizens to be represented fairly.

We can argue the various levels of "establishment" when placing various small phrases in all manner of public documents and buildings, but one thing is absolutely clear; placing *no* references to religion on documents and in buildings is absolute and perfect. In that way, *no* particular religion, and even religion itself, can be established by the government.

And as a result, everyone will be free to worship as they choose, or not to warship at all. Government must be secular, in order for that people under that government to be free.

I'd keep it in this context

Quote:

Our founding fathers were British subjects at one time, and England had a national church, of which the monarch was the titular head, while the Archbishop of Canterbury was the theological leader... and they were well aware of the prejudice and discrimination and wars based on religion in England and in most of Europe.

So, they wanted to make sure that in the America the Congress shall not make a law establishing a single religion on the land, but to have a nation where anyone can practice freely any believe or religion he may want.. without any advantage or discrimination social or economical due to his religious believes or practices.

0 Replies

Husker,

There is a reason that many of us feel that it is very important to keep religion out of government. I had a rare opportunity to feel it first hand.

When I was a practicing Christian I had the opportunity to travel to the Middle East. I visited a house church (that had a connection to members of my church). In Jordan there is a Christian minority that is protected by some laws, but it is clear that Jordan is a Muslim country. All of the laws, holdays etc. instituted by the government favored the dominant religion. The Christians I met felt and resented this. It left a lasting impression on me.

My impression is that the modern resistance to Christian symbols in the US government is from Jews who came from Europe. They understand the need for separation of church and state for relgious freedom better than anyone else. The state sponsored Christianity in Europe caused them no end of problems.

This argument about the founding fathers is irrelevant (as irrelevent as arguing about whether they wanted slavery or not.).

The fact is that after much struggle, growth and legal precedent, the separation of church and state is an important part of the United States law and culture.

This is one of the best and most important things about the United States. We have resisted the urge to set up a national religion.

It seems like things like God's name on a dollar bill aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.

The 10 commandments are a big thing to me. I find that the symbol of laws written in stone by the hand of God go against the ideals of Democracy. They simply are not appropriate.

But in general this fight is worth fighting.

I will oppose any attempts to to take away your right to pray, speak, write or sing your religion... even in annoying ways. I even (begrugingly) admit your right to come knocking on my door with your beliefs.

But just as strongly I will oppose any attempt to inject religion into government activities. I don't want public school teachers proselytizing my kids. I don't want judges using religious scriptures to decide how I will be treated under the law. I don't want to swear on a Bible or be led in prayer at a government meeting.

All of these things are bad.

Getting and keeping religion out of government institutions is very very important.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

But I read it as follows: Citizens have the right to do what they want in private or on private property, but the govenment must remain neutral (secular) in order for all citizens to be represented fairly.

It is neutral. It's not endorsing a particular religion.

Quote:

but one thing is absolutely clear; placing *no* references to religion on documents and in buildings is absolute and perfect. In that way, *no* particular religion, and even religion itself, can be established by the government.

Again, no religion is mentioned, no state religion is being imposed, there is no conflict.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Husker,
It seems like things like God's name on a dollar bill aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.

You're exactly right and that's why I'm a little disturbed by those who so adamantly want it taken off.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is neutral. It's not endorsing a particular religion.

John- It is not endorsing a particular religion, but it IS referring to a God, so it is NOT neutral. There are people in the US who don't believe in God, or don't know if there is a God, or don't care one way or another.

0 Replies

question to the "defenders of God" (for lack of a better phrase): on what basis have you concluded that the phrase "in God we trust" will be expunged from currency? speaking as a defender of church-state separation, the presence of that particular phrase doesn't bother me: its mere presence doesn't nullify church-state separation as far as i know.

the originator of the thread heard about this on radio. has anyone else seen or heard anything about this?

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

But I read it as follows: Citizens have the right to do what they want in private or on private property, but the govenment must remain neutral (secular) in order for all citizens to be represented fairly.

It is neutral. It's not endorsing a particular religion.

Then you are in denial of reality.

Placing statements of that nature on public currency is very obviously an endorsement of religion in general. We need only change the words slighty to say "In God we do *not* trust" and watch all the religious people kick and scream, in order to see that the words *mean* something to people.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Husker,
It seems like things like God's name on a dollar bill aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.

You're exactly right and that's why I'm a little disturbed by those who so adamantly want it taken off.

The title of this thread is Scary Little Things. Well I can think of no Scarier Little thing, that repeated tiny attacks on the first amendment like placing "In God We Trust" on national currency. And now that it's on there, no better little thing could be done than to remove it and to re-assert the value of separation of church and state.

0 Replies

rosbourne- Agree. I think that by removing that motto, it would show that the US abides by our Constitution.

And when we hear those wondrous words of Lincoln, "of the people, by the people, and for the people", we can be proud that the country respects the rights of ALL of its people.

0 Replies

Wait, I want to hear more about avatars with large breasts.

0 Replies

r979 & P32890, i respectfully disagree. i came across a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article about a bill to put "In God We Trust" in classrooms, which the ACLU rightly opposed. but then it goes on to say,

Quote:

But the ACLU and others note that while the motto appears on U.S. currency and in government buildings, in a ceremonial manner, the Supreme Court has distinguished between ceremonial religious expression in a general setting and religious speech directed specifically at public school students.

"Classrooms have always been treated differently," Frankel (legislative director of ACLU Pa chapter) said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05097/484170.stm

the reference to the Supreme Court indicates to me that the motto is constitutional on currency.

0 Replies

The erosion of the wall between church and state...scary little changes describes it.

0 Replies

I can certainly understand ebrown's experience with the Middle East. However, I don't really feel that we are headed toward anything like that. I just don't see the United States ever saying you can only practice Christianity.

Now, "In God We Trust" can be a rather generic term, can't it? Many religions claim their god as not the God of the Bible. Yes, I admit that it would leave those with no belief in God or not trusting God, etc., out. But, they do have the right to legally lobby, as everyone else does, to change this.

I do not agree that a teacher should preach to children in schools either. I feel that as long as it is not forced upon anyone then there should be no problem.

So, may I ask a question? To those that do not believe, etc., do you really feel having this phrase on US currency is, in essence, forcing this upon you?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

So, may I ask a question? To those that do not believe, etc., do you really feel having this phrase on US currency is, in essence, forcing this upon you?

Yes.

Although If I knew that I would never again have to see this type of "small change" in government auspices, and if I knew that I would never again have to listen to someone claim that this is a christian nation just because these "small" things now exist where they are, then I would be comfortable to let them remain as reminders of our less enlightened days as a young nation.

0 Replies

scary little changes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know