This is more than a little scary

[fredster]

It's an interpretation of the constitution

Where is it in the Consitution? Show me.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Somewhere you read a post and mistook it for mine.  It's ok.  I can forgive you.  

No, I read your post just fine. You seem to be suggesting that using a broad, inclusive term such as "Winter Break" somehow invalidates a specific religious celebration (ie: Christmas, etc). My question to you (with copious amounts of sarcasm) was, what would you rather have it called? Anything, in my mind, that must specifically referrence the Christian theology is just a selfish cry for validation, which would led one to believe other belief structures are seen to be invalid.

Maybe I am tired....debating religion does tend to make me sleepy.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Where is it in the Consitution? Show me.

For a rebuttle to that tired old argument, see here: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg1.htm

My personal favorite quote: "To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution."


mrC

[shmokes]

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

I have gone over this document several times, I really don't see it.

Perhpas you should read the entire document instead of just the portion you linked to:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

[fredster]

So you prove my Point. That's Mr.C.  Thanks for the non answer Shmokes!

"The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles"

It's not there either. So It's assumed. It's interpreted. (I'm not for it either), but with the proper backing, this "interpretation" can be changed with a stroke of the pen from the Supreme Court.

Where is it exactly? - Is this supposed to tell me that (Article 1) ?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

So that can be interpreted as having stained glass windows up, but not making people bow to them.  Tell me that people can't run with that in either direction.

People can say that because these religious icons are removed they are somehow injured and they can no longer practice the free exercise thereof;

[Ravant]

Where is it in the Consitution? Show me.

It's not directly in the Constitution, but corrupt political authorities, in conjunction with lawyers have twisted the words of the Constitution to meet their own needs. The Religious Freedom clause in the Constitution was set up to protect our government from the Pope. At the time, the Pope was the most powerful man in the world. We didn't want to be under his power. Protestants from Europe established the nation, and therefore wanted to keep the Catholic Church from meddling in governmental affairs. Also, by keeping religion out of the government, the Constitution effectively destroys the "ruling by devine right" excuse.

Here's a quick example of how badly politicians skew the Constitution. (Mind you, the following example has NOTHING to do with what I'm ranting about, it's just a simplified example.)

public void showStupidity(String name1, String name2)
{
name1: Cows produce methane gas. Methane gas contributes to the hole in the Ozone layer of the Earth. Therefore, cows are contributing to the hole in the Ozone layer of the earth.

name2: This just in, name1 is on a relentless vendetta against all cows. He said that cows are contributing to the hole in the Ozone layer of the Earth, therefore changing their national image, and is making people hate cows so they would kill them.
}//End example.

Above was an example of what politicians MIGHT do in that situation to bolster their own public image. The politician will also use his ties with the media and other connections to have Scientist Pete silenced, so the Politician's vendetta against polluting cars can continue.

In the terms of the Constitution, while separating church and state, people tend to view this as "Abandon religion at all costs" and therefore make every effort to have any religious symbols from any religion deleted from anywhere within, or around any governmental establishment. Our major laws revolve around the 10 commandments and the 7 Pilars of Islam, and more. Are we to do away with all laws and become a complete anarchy because we follow some morality within two or three religions?

[shmokes]

That's totally bogus.  How long has it been, exactly, since you've actually read the 10 commandments?  Here they are for your enjoyment:

1:  'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

2: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

3: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

4: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

5: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

6: 'You shall not murder.'

7: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

8: 'You shall not steal.'

9: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

10: 'You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's.'

You have to go to #5 before you get anything even resembling what might have made it into our lawbooks.  #6 is the first commandment with an outright correstponding law and is joined only by #8.  #6 and #8 are the only ones with outright laws.  You could possibly suggest that libel and slander are related to #9 and that legal guardian stuff applies to #5.  But it's certainly not against the law to talk back to your parents or tell them that you have no respect for them.

The 10 Commandments do not form the pillar of our laws.  Our laws do not "revolve" around the 10 commandments.  We live in a society.  The benefits to society at large of having no murder or theft are pretty self-evident.  I'll go out on a limb, in fact, and suggest that people were likely pretty keen about not being murdered BEFORE old Moses came down the mountain with his tablet.

[Ravant]

Well, first, #9 can be associated with purgery. That said, lemme make a point. Our laws are following half of the 10 commandments. So sue me, I made a generalized statement. And because 6 & 8 are actual laws, why not do away with all laws regarding murder and theft, because they're in the 10 commandments? If we're supposed to eliminate all remnants of religion within government, removing laws surrounding murder and theft would be the only logical way of *completely* ridding the government of religion.

Besides, you missed the point of my post. My post was focusing more on how skewed the Constitution's meaning has become compliments of corrupt scumbags that human stupidity allows in office. Anyone who wins an election, should probably not hold that office.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So you prove my Point.

The point is, the language is neutral...for a reason. You can no more drop a ten-ton monument of the ten commandments in a court house, than you can have a teacher tell a Muslim that there religion is inferior by hanging only a crucifix in homeroom.

I don't understand why it's so hard for religious folk to understand that to have a public institution acknowledge their 'one true religion', is to ignore everyone else. Neutrality is the only acceptable way to allow these ideologies to co-exist in locations we all equally share, and pay for.

If religious people didn't come across as so fanatical about it, I'd have no problem with my kid taking a social studies class that incorporated into their curriculum, a multi-week course on all the various religions of the world. In fact, I think it would broaden our children's understanding and acceptance of others. I don't think that would ever be allowed to happen however, as it seems inherent in every single religion the idea that everyone else is wrong.

To me, the separation of Church/State has never been about disregard, or lack of respect for religion (even though I have my own philosophy anathema to this)...it's a matter of exclusion vs. inclusion.


mrC

[ChadTower]

You can no more drop a ten-ton monument of the ten commandments in a court house, than you can have a teacher tell a Muslim that there religion is inferior by hanging only a crucifix in homeroom.

The only reason a child would think that is because someone like you would tell them it says Islam is inferior.  The concept of universal exclusion to prevent potential offense is flawed.  It screws everyone and benefits no one.  Let's just bring us all to the lowest common denominator of nothingness, shall we?  That way NO ONE gets to celebrate. 

We're looking at a case where nearly all of the religious students in our state would fall somewhere under that crucifix.  The ones that don't have no reason to be offended by it.  They should simply be able to request a Star of David, or mathematically less likely, whatever the Islamic equivalent symbol is.  In other words, we should be including everyone present, not excluding everyone.

[DrewKaree]

No, I read your post just fine. You seem to be suggesting that using a broad, inclusive term such as "Winter Break" somehow invalidates a specific religious celebration (ie: Christmas, etc). My question to you (with copious amounts of sarcasm) was, what would you rather have it called? Anything, in my mind, that must specifically referrence the Christian theology is just a selfish cry for validation, which would led one to believe other belief structures are seen to be invalid.

Maybe I am tired....debating religion does tend to make me sleepy.

No, I wasnt suggesting any such thing.  I was simply asking how he came to the conclusion that a "name" of something is fine in one instance, but not in another.  It was in reference to another post of his, that's all. 

And for the record, it doesn't bother me that it's called Winter Break, as Hannukah (sorry to those of you wishing it spelt differently....and the "spelt" is for danny) falls near there as well, and I think it's probably offensive to Jews that we celebrate Christmas, rather than their holidays.  I'd have no problem if we moved the week to include their holiday time there, and still keep it "Winter Break".

I was suggesting nothing of the sort you read into it. 

[shmokes]

If we're supposed to eliminate all remnants of religion within government, removing laws surrounding murder and theft would be the only logical way of *completely* ridding the government of religion.

Now you're on to something.  You know, I remember talking in church.  I guess talking must be religion too.  No more talking in government.

Religion didn't invent murder, and it certainly didn't invent the will to live.  Consider for a second how little credit you give your intelligence.  Do you really think that it would be beyond to you figure out for yourself that you don't want anybody killing you or taking your things or saying bad things about you?  You think that you'd go about mindlessly murdering people if you had never seen the sentence: Thou Shalt Not Kill?  These are conventions that would exist in any group of people that decided to work together to create a better life for everyone (a society, I mean). 

[fredster]

So you prove my Point.


The point is, the language is neutral...for a reason.

No, the point is that there is no basis in the law for separation of church and state. Only that they won't enact laws to establish it. 

It's vague, that's all. It doesn't say all that does it?  It just says""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It doesn't say that the govenment won't let people put up christmas trees or monuments to the 10 commandments either.  It just says the government won't found a church.

This whole thing is going to blow up pretty soon. You can't keep pissing off 85% of the population without some backlash.  As a non-believer, I don't care.  People can believe what they want. It think it's just as bad to preach non-belief to the believers as vice versa. Worse, because it serves no purpose to deny people who can't handle reality a little dose of help.  I'm glad that a philosophy gives people so much hope.

Any religion or ideology can be taken to the extreme.  There's Jim Jones to the facsists.  Either one is bad if taken to the extreme.  Now secular zealots are pushing thier "beliefs" in non belief to everybody.  That to me is very very sad.

[shmokes]

I think there is a slight, but significant difference in what us secular zealots are pushing, as opposed to our god-fearing friends.  We're not asking for signs or iconography that says that there is no god.  We are asking for the government to stay out of it altogether.

As far as the wording of the Constitution, the most common method of applying the establishment clause to Government actions is the three-pron Lemon test.  It's pretty reasonable.  They consider the following three things:

   1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
   2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
   3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

Here's an article that looks pretty informative that discusses some other methods that have been employed recently to guide church & state cases.  I just found it through Google, so don't jump down my throat if you think its biased.

The article also mentions that in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, the Supreme Court ruled that the establishment clause is one of the

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We're not asking for signs or iconography that says that there is no god.

To quote you from an earlier thread....AMEN!

I couldn't have, and as of yet haven't, said it better. Now can't we all just get along?




mrC

[fredster]

I always thought people went too far on both sides. Me, I thought it was just another thing to divide people, especially in school.  I didn't know until I was 15 I was supposed to dislike catholics, because, well, they are catholics.

But I couldn't see how taking down the 10 commandments served me either. I still don't see why I have to push back on religion.  Most people are believers, and hey, that's their right. Removing it in public places serves no purpose.  I don't think we have to bend the rules of 1000 to serve the needs of 1. 

If the local people of a community want to decorate their court house with stained glass and crosses, fine, that's great.  It doesn't stop them from doing the business of government, and might even make them more forgiving.  If some jewish group wants a symbol, let them pay for it and put it there.  No skin off my chin. 

Pushing back will just create a backlash that will cause more problems than it's worth, because it's worth nothing to me to keep fighting a idea war that nobody wins at.

And I can't prove my "non religion" either.  So resistance is futile.

[Ravant]

If we're supposed to eliminate all remnants of religion within government, removing laws surrounding murder and theft would be the only logical way of *completely* ridding the government of religion.

Now you're on to something.

[shmokes]

What's you're talking about is simply tyranny of the Majority.  The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from people who think like you and Fredster.  Think about it, if you have a majority it's easy enough to pass a law for whatever you want.  The right of the people to bare arms can't be abridged unless there is a majority in congress who decide to abridge it.  The right to assemble and freedom of religion and so on can't be abridged unless a there are a majority of lawmakers who agree to abridge it.  The point of the Bill of Rights was to guard certain important liberties from ever being taken away from the people, even if the majority in government wants to take them away.  It's not ALWAYS about what the majority wants..

And if it was we would never have had Brown v. Board of Education.

And by the way, our national motto and consequently our money did not originally say, "In God We Trust".  The Pledge of Allegience originally said, "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."  The national motto was originally "E Pluribus Unum" (I think that's spelled right) which means "Out of many, One".  Certianly not a devisive saying.

In 1954, to further distinguish America from the "godless commies" Congress voted to ADD god into government.  Perhaps if some overzealous christians hadn't added god in there to begin with us overzealous atheists wouldn't have to be busting our asses trying to get him taken back out.

[DrewKaree]

...us overzealous atheists wouldn't have to be busting our asses trying to get him taken back out.

I thought God was a she, or were are you just "mixing it up"? 

[shmokes]

...Damn it!!!

[ChadTower]

The right of the people to bare arms can't be abridged unless there is a majority in congress who decide to abridge it.

[ChadTower]

I thought God was a she, or were are you just "mixing it up"?

[fredster]

The right of the people to bare arms can't be abridged unless there is a majority in congress who decide to abridge it. 

No, they can't.  It's in the consitution to allow people to have guns, it's the basic law of the land.  That would be unconsitutional and easily proven unconstiutional.  If however there is a majority of people who want to change the actual consitution with an new article, it gets ratified into the consitution, well yah, then it happens.

Think about it, if you have a majority it's easy enough to pass a law for whatever you want.

Isn't that "democracy" in it's most basic form???

The point of the Bill of Rights was to guard certain important liberties from ever being taken away from the people, even if the majority in government wants to take them away.

[DrewKaree]

One of my pet peeves is ATM's too!  But for a different reason.

On a drive-up ATM, why do they have Braille on them?   

[saint]

What if the local Wiccans want to put up a pentagram in the courthouse? People will have to weigh in to let me know if I'm wrong, but I suspect the majority of Christians would object to it (and possibly Jews, Muslims, etc...). Anyone who believes the 10 Commandments belong in a court house please feel free to comment, I'm genuinely curious. What about something less controversial, such as a statue of Buddah?

And Fredster, for what it's worth, I agree with you the default language on an ATM should be English anywhere in the US.  I don't mind Spanish being available (I think English only laws are silly), but it shouldn't be the default.

--- saint

If the local people of a community want to decorate their court house with stained glass and crosses, fine, that's great.  It doesn't stop them from doing the business of government, and might even make them more forgiving.  If some jewish group wants a symbol, let them pay for it and put it there.  No skin off my chin. 

[ChadTower]

You can't make English only laws in the US because the US has no official languages. 

[SirPeale]

What if the local Wiccans want to put up a pentagram in the courthouse?

Er...that's 'pentacle' for Wiccan's...'pentagram' for Satanists.

[ChadTower]

Satanists, wiccans, it's all the same, yes?

(that's a joke, from someone from Salem, MA who knows damn well they're not, BTW)

[shmokes]

Satanists, wiccans, it's all the same, yes?

That offends me.  Don't mix my lot up with those dirty wiccans...

[ChadTower]

Hey man, I know quite a few Wicca and most of them shower.

[Harry Potter]

Satanists, wiccans, it's all the same, yes?

(that's a joke, from someone from Salem, MA who knows damn well they're not, BTW)

My friends wife is into the whole witchcraft thing and told me Wiccans are usually called 'Fluffy bunnies' because they refuse to associate with any aspect of life or religion that could be even remotely considered as slightly not nice. They are basically super-duper-goodie-goodie-two-shoes according to the witch wife. 

I wish I had known this before I uttered a similar "Satanists, wiccans, it's all the same, yes?" type fo phrase and was subjected to a long lecture on witchcraft, religion, existantialism and other stuff. 42 popped up somewhere in the conversation. 

Moral=DON'T compare wiccans to satanists, witches, priests, danny_galaga etc etc. unless you want to be bored to sleep.

[Dartful Dodger]

What if the local Wiccans want to put up a pentagram in the courthouse? People will have to weigh in to let me know if I'm wrong, but I suspect the majority of Christians would object to it (and possibly Jews, Muslims, etc...). Anyone who believes the 10 Commandments belong in a court house please feel free to comment

You are wrong.

There are 50 of them on the US Flag, and a building is in the shape of one.

[ChadTower]

My friends wife is into the whole witchcraft thing and told me Wiccans are usually called 'Fluffy bunnies' because they refuse to associate with any aspect of life or religion that could be even remotely considered as slightly not nice. They are basically super-duper-goodie-goodie-two-shoes according to the witch wife. 

None of the Wicca I know fit that description, and these aren't suburban bored teens, these are people who have been devoted to their faith for decades.

[Luxury]

If everybody just believed in the Force, then none of this would be a problem. Convert Now!

http://www.jediism.org/

http://212.168.23.160/creed/

42 popped up somewhere in the conversation.

       

[DrewKaree]

I believe in the number 33 and a magical spring said to be found in Latrobe, from which life juice pours forth and is turned into the nectar of the gods (all of them....if you have enough nectar )

[shmokes]

What if the local Wiccans want to put up a pentagram in the courthouse? People will have to weigh in to let me know if I'm wrong, but I suspect the majority of Christians would object to it (and possibly Jews, Muslims, etc...). Anyone who believes the 10 Commandments belong in a court house please feel free to comment

You are wrong.

There are 50 of them on the US Flag, and a building is in the shape of one.  Yes I know they are called pentagons, but that is also a pentagram.  Just like a cross is shaped like a crucifix, but nonChristians are upset when they see it on city flag.

To me the shapes on the flag represent states; the witches can believe whatever they want to about them.

Our laws are based on the 10 commandments.  If you don

[shmokes]

I believe in the number 33 and a magical spring said to be found in Latrobe, from which life juice pours forth and is turned into the nectar of the gods (all of them....if you have enough nectar )

If you ever suggest that there is more than one again I will strike your ass down!

[DrewKaree]

I for one would like to see more of our laws "Biggie Sized", hold the pickle and mustard, with sweet and sour dipping sauce. 

And if I could get a Frosty with that life sentence, that'd be super...mmmmkay?

I'd like to start the petition mandating the last meal at execution be the Hardee's 6 Dollar Burger Value Meal....after all, your cholesterol levels will be the last thing on your mind.

 

I know you won't strike my ayse down, regardless of the number of them....it goes against your loving nature.

[shmokes]

I command you to refer to the old testament!

[DrewKaree]

I for one would like to see more of our laws "Biggie Sized", hold the pickle and mustard, with sweet and sour dipping sauce, you know, raise a little Cain.

And if I'm Abel could I get a Frosty with that life sentence, that'd be super...mmmmkay?

I'd like to start the petition mandating the last meal at execution be whored out like Jezebel, and force the Hardee's 6 Dollar Burger Value Meal be served....after all, your cholesterol levels will be the last thing on your mind.

JeezYeshua, get a Job....I go spouting various Proverbs and you're on me like stink on Dexter....why pick on me?  I'm a nice Gentile soul 

Better?