good post joel.

britt

 

That's great and all...but I try to live MY life by what the Bible says. I believe it is the inspired word of God. I've never seen Allah or Muhammed mentioned in the Bible....and the Bible says that Jesus is our Savior. As a result....I believe that Jesus is our Savior and that there is ONE God....who is the Father of Jesus. The ONLY way come to God, the Father, is through Jesus.

That's just me though. You are more than welcome to believe what you want...and one of the reasons for that is because of separation of church and state.

 

Sepreation is to keep gov. out of church..but when the day comes that "christian people" along with all their bible knowledge and strong moral fiber are not allowed to represent in this country, our country will cease to exist. I believe that certain organizations (ACLU) are out to remove christianity from our midst. Point being, the Bible is not supposed to be available in our public schools..but it is perfectly acceptable for the koran or any other number of "religious" handbooks to be there.

I am a born again christian, and I believe in the "big bang" theory..I believe that God spoke and BANG creation!

 

Yeah right! The ACLU are nothing but a bunch of liberal activist trouble makers determined to change whatever they disagree with, and mostly any thing religious. Oh and they are real good at suing the government on behalf of convicted felons too. If any politician I currently support were a member I would not vote for them.


[B/]I'm not sure what about my position you don't understand so let me make it clear for you.
We already have the right to pray where ever they want. (Obvoisly without being disruptive to whatever else is going on around us)
I do not want some non believer or cultist leading my kids in prayer at school or anywhere else for that matter.
I do not want to force my belief on anyone.
And I believe in the First Amendment." Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof....", funny I didnt see the words "separation of church and state" in there.
So I don't understand what about the word freedom you don't get but being a christian does NOT mean I have to check MY faith at the door and it will take a lot more than some activist judge or the ACLU to make me do that.
Have nice day.

 

Oops I goofed the quotes again. Sorry

 

Looking at this discussion from quite a distance I will fling in my observations.
The point that the USA were founded by people living after judeo-christian standards of morale is very valid IMHO- and they opted for keeping poilitcs and laws out of religion and vice versa.
Maybe they did consider the points of different christian churches (sects?? ) as the main factor when they did so. But nowadays, after several centuries in which the USA were very attractive for believers in totally different religions because of what was written in the first amendment I feel that society has evolved/adapted or to say at least changed. I think I can safely assume that during the creation of the constitution and the first amendment of all the people involved in this process the vast majority were christians. Also the main part of the population that was allowed to go to elections were christians.
Today things have changed and the result is a population that has different beliefs, different standards of morale etc than at the time of the constitution.
For that I feel that the constitution and the amendments are either outdated today or at least the interpretation should be adapted to today's reality. This might not suit a lot of people, but I feel it's the only way to avoid massive problems in the future.
Personally I think a separation of church and state is really positive. Please note that I wrote church, not religion or belief. I do not have any problem with people believing in anything- christian morale and values are what I live after. I also read the Koran- to find roughly the same values. I also read Buddhist literature and a lot of other religious books from different religions. On teh part where they concern themselves with how people should live together they are really very close to each other. They state the same things as good and the same things as evil. And the biggest perpetrators against the deitie's laws usually are the "groundcrews" claiming to serve the deity. All is well if the person concerned is of the same religion as the group- but where are the christian morale standards when the person concerned is of another religion? Where in the 10 comandments is the sentence that declares the No. 5 Thou shalt not kill void if the subject to killing is of a different religion? - Nevertheles under the name of christianity many people have been killed. And the worst times, most bloodshed were when the church(es) and the state combined.
Just some thoughts...

AlpineRAM

 

Seperation of Church and state.
There is no law in this country for it.
They are forcing a legal brief on us. IIRC , it was about 1968 when an attorney wrote it.
The government can make no law pertaining to religion etc.
Also there is no amendments that allow a personal opinion to be forced on the public.

 

http://www.nbc13.com/news/3394580/detail.html

I wonder how far they will get....we are extremely conservative here and some issues that they state are already enforced....to some degree.

a double edged sword no doubt. FWIW - JKE

 

Actually, having READ all the Federalist Papers-- I can tell you that the phrase is not to be found in them that *I* remember (but we know that might not be too accurate, lol).

Second, the Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") and John Jay. They were advocating stronger centralized government.

The Anti-Federalists (including Jefferson, maybe Adams, too-- I can't recall) were advocating a government with looser control over an association of independent states, similar to what we had under the Articles of Confederation.


The phrase "Separation of Church and State" actually comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. He responding to inquiries as to why he would not support the declaration of national days of fasting and Thanksgiving, as Adams and Washington has done.

Thus, you can see that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" reflects Jefferson's personal views. IT IS NOT IN ANY OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT- CONSTITUTION, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, ET AL

For context, so you may read more of what Jefferson's thinking was, I have copied his letter here. Note the date of 1802-- long after the ratification of the Constitution, and the signing of the Declaration. If one would read the Federalist Papers and their discussion of the religion question, one would understand WHY the "establishment" clause was placed in the Constitution so highly.

The Colonists had lived under a ruthless English king (George) who abused the might of the British-- seeing fit to plunder the colonies to enhance the wealth of his empire.

The English system was setup at the time where the King was also head of the Church of England (the Anglican Church). The Anglican Church was established by Henry VIII as a replacement to the previous Catholic church that refused to grant him "indulgences" for his many sordid sexual escapades. Thus, Henry fabricated a new "Church" with himself at the top so he could grant himself unlimited license. It also allowed him to invoke the name of God as an authority for taxation and a rallying point for the soldiers he sent into combat to expand the empire.

Those sincere English who feared God and hated the corruption of the church, fled to the Colonies so that they may practice their beliefs in freedom. In effect, they were refugees who were fleeing religious oppression.

As the population of the Colonies expanded, there remained an overwhelming majority of the citizenry that held the beliefs of the early Colonists. Most were Puritan, many were Quaker, some where Shaker. The number of atheists or agnostics in the Colonies at the time was extremely small, as having these beliefs would render someone a social outcast.


Therefore, the establishment cause was put into the Constitution to prevent the the usurpation of the church's authority by a corrupt ruler. The authors of the Constitution were afraid of a repeat of the nightmare they had under the English King. The "Establishment" clause is there to PROTECT RELIGION FROM THE GOVERNMENT. It's NOT there to prevent the government from allowing any particular religious practice.


At the time, this "establishment" worked perfectly. This is because the Federal government did nothing to fund public education and a myriad of other things that it funds now. Because local communities paid for themselves, they were free to have school policies in place that reflected their religious beliefs. If you lived in a small Christian town, the local public school WAS a Christian school. If your community was not religious, the local school would reflect that. There was rarely a controversy over Christmas pageants or public displays of something "religious".

Government and society have changed, and this puts us in the middle of a controversy that the Founders could not have foreseen.

JLH

 

Guardian of Liberty?? Surely you jest. The ACLU has a rather interesting and creative interpretation of liberty in many cases. They are REMOVING the liberty of those who desire religious freedom as the advance THEIR religion of atheism/agnosticism.

Organized prayer in schools is a good thing. Compulsory prayer is not. Teachers and faculty should be free to organize and participate in such activities with the students.

As for defending constitutional rights, well I'd like to see where the Consitutional right to an abortion is. I've read the document and couldn't see it. Likewise for the Constitutional rights of disabled Americans to get preferred parking spaces and special access ramps.

The problem with the ACLU and in America in general is that we have become so obssessed with our "rights". We feel we are so entitled. We have the "patient's bill of rights." Really? I thought we were just lucky to have any healthcare at all! People think they have the right not to be offended. Really? Then why can't I ban pornography or something that offends ME? What about *MY* "civil liberties"?


It's good to have someone looking out for your freedoms, and there are times I have found myself in astonished agreement with the ACLU. But they seem to be picking and choosing a certain clientele based on values that are quite different from mine.

JLH