Author Topic: Did this go too far? (Read 849 times)

ASTAC · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2005, 06:51:46 AM »

I agree that pushing religeon of any kind in schools is not appropriate.

What I want to know is, why in the past 10 years has there been so many attacks on religeon and government. The leftist media is always quoted saying "fundamentalist Christian morals" in a negative way. What is wrong with Christian morals? What is wrong with the 10 commandments being on public display on government property? Government endorsement of a religon is different than a government mandate saying you must be a certain religon. Forced religon was the ONLY purpose of the "seperation of church and state" part of the amendment.
If the idiots that attacked religon so much had their way, all of our basic morals and values would be out the door.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 28, 2005, 07:14:29 AM »

I never said that this was good. I'm just mad every time someone shouts seperation of church and state.

The state can have an official church. They just can't enforce it on you, benefit those who are in that church over those that aren't, or punish you for not being in the church.

lada · « **Reply #17 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:24:50 AM »

may be you will hear more often things like
" Mr. President what will you do for us ?"

" I will pray for you my dear voters."

and everybody will be happy
(last time bush used this answer was 1 weak ago or so.)

lada · « **Reply #18 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:26:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I never said that this was good. I'm just mad every time someone shouts seperation of church and state.

The state can have an official church. They just can't enforce it on you, benefit those who are in that church over those that aren't, or punish you for not being in the church.

Countries, where religion is connect with goverment are called Theocratic ... right ?

lazs2 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:26:56 AM »

the government should have nothing to do with schools... it should be seperation of state and schooling.

lazs

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 28, 2005, 09:48:00 AM »

Governments that are ruled by religion are called Theocratic. Just because a government has a religion, doesn't mean it rules by it.

crowMAW · « **Reply #21 on:** March 28, 2005, 11:03:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
The state can have an official church. They just can't enforce it on you, benefit those who are in that church over those that aren't, or punish you for not being in the church.

Want to show some jurisprudence to back that up?

The 1st Amendment is pretty clear:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

And, the 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) with its Equal Protection Clause extends the 1st Amendment to the States.

As far as the separation of church and state...already posted is Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, who btw were looking to Jefferson for help to rid Connecticut of its official church (the Congrgationalist Church, which was given special status including being the recipient of a religious tax collected from all citizens of the state).

But if that is not enough read from one of your own:

http://www3.baylor.edu/Church_State/journ2003Winter.htm#Editorial

The author, Dr. Derek H. Davis, is former director of J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies (Baylor University) and current director of Center for Science and Theology (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). The article was reprinted in Christian Ethics Today (Vol. 49)

Sabre · « **Reply #22 on:** March 28, 2005, 03:35:39 PM »

Without a doubt. As one who does not have a problem with religious symbols on public land (particularly if presented in a historical context), or with allowing prayer at functions like public school graduations, or with including “intelligent design” as an alternate theory -- along side evolution -- to the origins of life in public school classrooms, I nonetheless would hold the school in the wrong for this obvious and forced religious indoctrination. In a private, religious-run school it would perhaps be appropriate.

I am no constitutional scholar, but I do not believe it was the intention of the founding fathers to exercise completely any mention of the divine from the public forum; only that there should be no influence of organized religion in government institutions. The term “endowed by their creator” in one of our founding documents, the use of the word “God” and “divine” on many of our public monuments, the practice of including an invocation at the opening of Congressional sessions, all point to the conclusion that the nation’s founders and early leaders were not against mention of God or spiritual matters in the public forum. Rather, their two-fold aim was to insure no one was forceed to practice a particular religion, or to deny anyone the free exercise thereof.

bustr · « **Reply #23 on:** March 28, 2005, 03:55:29 PM »

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.

Why do most people when arguing the constitution only include the part of the amedment that supports their personal view? You have a catch-22 in the second statement:

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

We the People are the government. So those we elect to represent our interests are of us, and we should know their religious backgrounds before we elect them. (Or we should know). The oath of office does not prohibit members of the government from practicing their religion while in office. Or even openly basing their decisions upon the tennets of their religion. They are prohibited from making their branch of religion the national religion of the U.S.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

This statement makes the establishmnet of a National religion by congress a violation of the constitution. It does not forbid the practice of religion in the public arena or privately. And practicing religion in almost all religions encompasses talking about it in public, using words and phrases of said religion as a daily part of ones life....this can go on and on. It's funny how the third part protecting the freedom of speech tends to be forgotten these days when it comes to religion. Guess free speech is only free to secularists and stateists in the year 2005 of our Lord.

"or abridging the freedom of speech"

Religion has that awfull problem of being communicated by the faithfull as speech. So unless the United States has passed hate speech laws like the UK and Philidelphia has recently, I think religious speech is protected by the freedom of speech section. Just like if you don't care to hear several gentelmen of the other persuasion bragging about the boyfreinds they did last night, you are free to walk away or not listen. They in turn have the same freedom if they don't like hearing you talk about the bible. There is no right in the constitution to not be offended by what you hear. <---"or abridging the freedom of speech"

As for the school, unless it is a private school and you are paying for your child to learn God's plan, the teacher should not be teaching God's plan in place of science.

As for jefferson's "wall", his style of writing kind of leaves what inspired his choice of words up to interpretation. Jefferson was not a christian. He was a bit more of a secularist/natural deist. You might construe that he saw the Church as another form of tyranny and a hiderance to the independant natural developmant of a mans mind and spirit. He deplored goverments intrusions into the private lives of the people, Statism\Federalism. The Church can be looked on with this same suspicion in essence having hold of the hearts and minds of free men.

bustr · « **Reply #24 on:** March 28, 2005, 04:08:20 PM »

Jefferson by the way supported freedom of religion as shown by this bill he submitted:

In June 1779 the introduction of Jefferson's bill on religious liberty touched off a quarrel that caused turmoil in Virginia for 8 years. The bill was significant as no other state--indeed, no other nation--provided for complete religious liberty at that time. Jefferson's bill stated "that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions on matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." Many Virginians regarded the bill as an attack upon Christianity. It did not pass until 1786, and then mainly through the perseverance of James Madison. Jefferson, by then in France, congratulated Madison, adding that "it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions."

mosgood · « **Reply #25 on:** March 28, 2005, 04:20:54 PM »

It's totally inappropriate for her to do that..... and I'm willing to bet that she knew it.

She should be punished for straying from the corriculum she is paid to teach. She is not entrusted with those kids,so she can force upon them her beliefs.

It's completely disrespectful.

oboe · « **Reply #26 on:** March 28, 2005, 04:22:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bustr
As for jefferson's "wall", his style of writing kind of leaves what inspired his choice of words up to interpretation. Jefferson was not a christian. He was a bit more of a secularist/natural deist. You might construe that he saw the Church as another form of tyranny and a hiderance to the independant natural developmant of a mans mind and spirit. He deplored goverments intrusions into the private lives of the people, Statism\Federalism. The Church can be looked on with this same suspicion in essence having hold of the hearts and minds of free men.

In these views I consider him a Libertarian, yet he advocated free public education as important to the health of our democracy. But the modern day libertarian view seems to be more along the lines of Lazs' thinking - that the state should have no part in schooling.

Kindof interesting. I suspect if the State left education to private hands, we would develop the same kind of gross inequity in education level that we now have in wealth and income. My concern is that both these trends weaken our democracy in the long term.

bustr · « **Reply #27 on:** March 28, 2005, 04:57:38 PM »

When you think of Jefferson's times, education came from your parents, church school, or if you had the resources a private academy. Education of the young is the best place to start for creating generations of citizens who think the way you want. So the church as a source of education other than religion would be suspect.

Jefferson's bill on religious liberty was a veiled hit on the organized church by freeing men to pursue knowlege freely without repercussions from the church, community, or government. Following the church is following dogma, which means no freedom of thought.

Extend this to his wall between church and state. He did not want church dogma to rule from congress, but instead men of free mind and christian moral foundation making rational decisions. He agreed with christianities moral foundation for it's positive influence on the health of a society. This is akin to the fear that John F. Kennedy as President of the U.S. would be taking orders from the Pope.

Jefferson did not want to destroy or expunge religion from the American public. He wanted our elected officials to think for themselves as free men who have a strong christian moral foundation.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 28, 2005, 05:14:34 PM »

If she's teaching in a public school, the curriculum is dictated by state standards which are state law.

The state law can't authorize religious indoctrination because of the 1st amendment and equal protection.

Therefore she was not teaching the standards, and deserves to be treated like any other teacher who is not teaching the correct curriculum. That is, she is expected to modify her curriculum or face disciplinary action.

As far as 1st amendment rights protecting the teacher's speech, you give up those rights when you walk into the classroom. Your job is to teach the standards and if you don't want to do that you should find another line of work.

crowMAW · « **Reply #29 on:** March 28, 2005, 10:56:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bustr
This statement makes the establishmnet of a National religion by congress a violation of the constitution. It does not forbid the practice of religion in the public arena or privately.

And what defines establishment? Is it only if Congress (or State Legislative bodies given the 14th Amendment) expressly states: "The official religion of the United States shall be XXX". Or if I use the coercive power of the government to proselytize by placing religious icons in conspicuous locations designed to intimidate non-believers; or if I require students to pray to a god just after saying the Pledge; or if I place proselytizing slogans on currency and within statements of allegiance to the country...do those actions not constitute establishing a government endorsed religion? If not...why, and where do you draw the line?

Quote

Originally posted by bustr
It's funny how the third part protecting the freedom of speech tends to be forgotten these days when it comes to religion.

As for the school, unless it is a private school and you are paying for your child to learn God's plan, the teacher should not be teaching God's plan in place of science.

So, which is it...does the teacher have the right to exercise free speech in the classroom or not? Can she proselytize or not?

I would not presume that it is possible to take religion out of the people who make our government...but I would like to see that government stay out of religion. What is the danger if strong separation is not maintained? Well, two of the largest religions of the world today both require in dogma the conversion of non-believers. And from what I have seen of fanatical members who hold high office, both here and abroad, they will take every opportunity to use their position in government to convert non-believers. To me...that defines establishing an accepted religion by a government.