Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
When the United States has sex with Christianity....
Author Message
wvucrazed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,363
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 179
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Fairfax, VA
Post: #21
 
uhmump95 Wrote:
wvucrazed Wrote:But the underlying thought process that this statue represents - the merging of Christianity and US Government - is truly alarming... because it is happening more and more every day.
I have to disagree with this statement, since "Separation of Church and State" is constantly being used to remove many apsects of Christianity from our daily lives.

It's constantly being used to defend attempts by Christians to assert more influence over the government.
07-06-2006 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #22
 
GrayBeard Wrote:
wvucrazed Wrote:
GrayBeard Wrote:
wvucrazed Wrote:
GrayBeard Wrote:
wvucrazed Wrote:There is a wide segment of the Christian population in this country that wants to turn America into a theocracy. It's scary 01-wingedeagle

You know, that goes both ways. It's not just the Christians that can be fanatics, but there is another side as well. You just spout off about the Christians because they don't share the same ideals and morals as yourself.

I have nothing against Christians - I just don't want them trying to control my life, and the lives of other Americans, with their own notion of morality.

Are you ignoring the socialist movement from the left side in the US? Which one do you think will be more detrimental to the country?


Oh come on, now... who do you think has more power and influence in this country, the socialists or religious conservatives? It's not even close.

These fundamentalists are driving people away from the Church and from religion in general because of their radical views and sanctimoniousness, and their desire to infiltrate government (which has largely been successful.)

Religion is supposed to be about a relationship with God, not a desire to shape a political agenda. The Statue of Liberty above by itself is not a big deal. Sure, a church can erect whatever it wants. But the underlying thought process that this statue represents - the merging of Christianity and US Government - is truly alarming... because it is happening more and more every day.

Wow, I didn't realize that there was such a Christian Conspiracy going on in the US. I need to get busy.

Have you been living under a rock or do you just not pay attention to the world around you? Yes, it is happening. It also scares the heck out of me too. Sorry to be so blunt but it is so obvious, it is really difficult to miss.
07-06-2006 09:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GrayBeard Offline
Whiny Troll
*

Posts: 33,012
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 880
I Root For: My Kids & ECU
Location: 523 Miles From ECU

Crappies
Post: #23
 
wvucrazed Wrote:
uhmump95 Wrote:
wvucrazed Wrote:But the underlying thought process that this statue represents - the merging of Christianity and US Government - is truly alarming... because it is happening more and more every day.
I have to disagree with this statement, since "Separation of Church and State" is constantly being used to remove many apsects of Christianity from our daily lives.

It's constantly being used to defend attempts by Christians to assert more influence over the government.

That statement makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
07-06-2006 10:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wvucrazed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,363
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 179
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Fairfax, VA
Post: #24
 
GrayBeard Wrote:
wvucrazed Wrote:
uhmump95 Wrote:
wvucrazed Wrote:But the underlying thought process that this statue represents - the merging of Christianity and US Government - is truly alarming... because it is happening more and more every day.
I have to disagree with this statement, since "Separation of Church and State" is constantly being used to remove many apsects of Christianity from our daily lives.

It's constantly being used to defend attempts by Christians to assert more influence over the government.

That statement makes absolutely no sense what so ever.


It makes perfect sense. Many conservative Christians seem to forget, or to ignore, the concept of the Separation of Church and State. They have to be reminded quite frequently.
07-06-2006 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #25
 
wvucrazed Wrote:It makes perfect sense. Many conservative Christians seem to forget, or to ignore, the concept of the Separation of Church and State. They have to be reminded quite frequently.

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

The Myth Behind "Separation of Church and State"

by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright ? 2000-2004

This country was established upon the assumption that religion was essential to good government. On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." (1) The First Amendment prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion to which the several states must pay homage. The First Amendment provided assurance that the federal government would not meddle in the affairs of religion within the sovereign states.
In modern times groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have attempted to create an environment wherein government and religion are adversaries. Their favorite phrase has been "separation of church and state." These groups have intoned the mantra of "separation of church and state" so long that many people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. In Proverbs Chapter 18, verse 16, the Bible says, "He who states his case first seems right until another comes to challenge him." I'm sure you have seen legal arguments on television where the prosecution argues to the jury that the defendant is guilty. Once the prosecution finishes the opening presentation, you believe that the defendant is guilty. However, after the defense attorney completes the rebuttal presentation of the evidence, you may be confused, or at least you acknowledge that the case is not clear cut.

The same is true with the phrase "separation of church and state." The ACLU and the liberal media have touted the phrase so many times that most people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. Nowhere is "separation of church and state" referenced in the Constitution. This phrase was in the former Soviet Union's Constitution, but it has never been part of the United States Constitution.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "It is one of the misfortunes of the law that ideas become encysted in phrases, and thereafter for a long time cease to provoke further analysis." (2) The phrase, "separation of church and state," has become one of these misfortunes of law.

In 1947 the Supreme Court popularized Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." (3) Taking the Jefferson metaphor out of context, strict separationists have often used the phrase to silence Christians and to limit any Christian influence from affecting the political system. To understand Jefferson's "wall of separation," we should return to the original context in which it was written. Jefferson himself once wrote:

On every question of construction, [we must] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the test, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was a part. (4)

Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated as the third President on March 4, 1801. On October 7, 1801, a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a congratulatory letter to Jefferson on his election as President. Organized in 1790, the Danbury Baptist Association was an alliance of churches in Western Connecticut. The Baptists were a religious minority in the state of Connecticut where Congregationalism was the established church. (5)

The concern of the Danbury Baptist Association is understandable once we understand the background of church-state relations in Great Britain. The Association eschewed the kind of state sponsored enforcement of religion that had been the norm in Great Britain.

The Danbury Baptist Association committee wrote to the President stating that, "Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals -- that no man ought to suffer in Name, person or affects on account of his religious Opinions." (6) The Danbury Baptists believed that religion was an unalienable right and they hoped that Jefferson would raise the consciousness of the people to recognize religious freedom as unalienable. However, the Danbury Baptists acknowledged that the President of the United States was not a "national Legislator" and they also understood that the "national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State." (7) In other words, they recognized Jefferson's limited influence as the federal executive on the individual states.

Jefferson did not necessarily like receiving mail as President, but he generally endeavored to turn his responses into an opportunity to sow what he called "useful truths" and principles among the people so that the ideas might take political root. He therefore took this opportunity to explain why he as President, contrary to his predecessors, did not proclaim national days of fasting and prayer.

Jefferson's letter went through at least two drafts. Part of the first draft reads as follows:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion... (8)

Jefferson asked Levi Lincoln, the Attorney General, and Gideon Granger, the Postmaster General, to comment on his draft. In a letter to Mr. Lincoln, Jefferson stated he wanted to take the occasion to explain why he did not "proclaim national fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did." (9) He knew that the response would "give great offense to the New England clergy" and he advised Lincoln that he should suggest necessary changes. (10)

Mr. Lincoln responded that the five New England states have always been in the habit of "observing fasts and thanksgivings in performance of proclamations from the respective Executives" and that this "custom is venerable being handed down from our ancestors." (11) Lincoln therefore struck through the last sentence of the above quoted letter about Jefferson refraining from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion. Jefferson penned a note in the margin that this paragraph was omitted because "it might give uneasiness to some of our republican friends in the eastern states where the proclamation of thanksgivings" by their state executives is respected. (12)

To understand Jefferson's use of the wall metaphor in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, we must compare his other writings. On March 4, 1805, in Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address, he stated as follows:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General [i.e., federal] Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. (13)

Then on January 23, 1808, Jefferson wrote in response to a letter received by Reverend Samuel Miller, who requested him to declare a national day of thanksgiving and prayer:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provisions that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion [First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States [Tenth Amendment]. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority. (14)

* * *

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have every belief, that the example of State executives led to the assumption of that authority by the General Government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in State government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another.... [C]ivil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents. (15)

Comparing these two responses to his actions in the state government of Virginia show the true intent of Jefferson's wall metaphor. As a member of the House of Burgesses, on May 24, 1774, Jefferson participated in drafting and enacting a resolution designating a "Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer." (16) This resolution occurred only a few days before he wrote "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom." In 1779, while Jefferson was governor of Virginia, he issued a proclamation decreeing a day "of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God." In the late 1770's, as chair of the Virginia committee of Revisers, Jefferson was the chief architect of a measure entitled, "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving." Interestingly, this bill authorized the governor, or Chief Magistrate with the advice of Counsel, to designate days of thanksgiving and fasting and, required that the public be notified by proclamation. The bill also provided that "[e]very minister of the gospel shall on each day so to be appointed, attend and perform divine service and preach a sermon, or discourse, suited to the occasion, in his church, on pain of forfeiting fifty pounds for every failure, not having a reasonable excuse." (17) Though the bill was never enacted, Jefferson was its chief architect and the sponsor was none other than James Madison.

So what did Jefferson mean when he used the "wall" metaphor? Jefferson undoubtedly meant that the First Amendment prohibited the federal Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As the chief executive of the federal government, the President's duty was to carry out the directives of Congress. If Congress had no authority in matters of religion, then neither did the President. Religion was clearly within the jurisdiction of the church and states. As a state legislator, Jefferson saw no problem with proclaiming days of thanksgiving and prayer, and even on one occasion prescribed a penalty to the clergy for failure to abide by these state proclamations. Jefferson believed that the Constitution created a limited government and that the states retained the authority over matters of religion not only through the First Amendment but also through the Tenth Amendment. (18) The federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction over religion, as that matter was left where the Constitution found it, namely with the individual churches and the several states.

In summary, the First Amendment says more about federalism than religious freedom. In other words, the purpose of the First Amendment was to declare that the federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction in matters of religion. It could neither establish a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment clearly erected a barrier between the federal government and religion on a state level. If a state chose to have no religion, or to have an established religion, the federal government had no jurisdiction one way or the other. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant by the "wall of separation." In context, the word "state" really referred to the federal government. The First Amendment did not apply to the states. It was only applicable as a restraint against the federal government. The problem arose in 1940 (19) and then again in 1947 (20) when the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to the states. This turned the First Amendment on its head, and completely inverted its meaning. (21) The First Amendment was never meant to be a restraint on state government. It was only applicable to the federal government. When the Supreme Court turned the First Amendment around 180 degrees and used Jefferson's comment in the process, it not only perverted the First Amendment, but misconstrued the intent of Jefferson's letter.
There is nothing wrong with the way Jefferson used the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor. The problem has arisen when the Supreme Court in 1947 erroneously picked up the metaphor and attempted to construct a constitutional principal. While the metaphor understood in its proper context is useful, we might do well to heed the words of the United States Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist:

The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. (22)

Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" as a means of expressing his republican view that the federal or general government should not interfere with religious matters among the several states. In its proper context, the phrase represents a clear expression of state autonomy.

Accordingly, Jefferson saw no contradiction in authoring a religious proclamation to be used by state officials and refusing to issue similar religious proclamations as president of the United States. His wall had less to do with the separation of church and all civil government than with the separation of federal and state governments. (23)

The "wall of separation between church and state" phrase as understood by Jefferson was never meant to exclude people of faith from influencing and shaping government. Jefferson would be shocked to learn that his letter has been used as a weapon against religion. He would never countenance such shabby and distorted use of history.

Endnotes

1. Ord. or 1789, July 13, 1787, Art. A III, reprinted in Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of American States 52 (1927).
2. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S . 347, 384 (1912) ( Holmes, J., dissenting).
3. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). See also McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948).
4. Thomas Jefferson to Messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins and Stephen S. Nelson, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, January 1, 1802, Pre sidential Papers Microfilm, Thomas Jefferson Papers , Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Ser. I, reel 25, November. 15, 1801 - March 31, 1802; Jefferson to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, Presidential Papers Microfilm, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Ser. I, reel 70. The letters referenced below can be found at this citation .
5. Daniel Dreisbach, "Sowing Useful Truths and Principles": The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the "Wall of Separation," 39 Journal of Church and State 455 , 459 (1997).
6. Id. at 460.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 462.
9. Id. at 463 n. 16.
10. Id. at 465.
11. Id. at 466.
12. Id. at 462 n. 13.
13. Thomas Jefferson to the Reverend Samuel Miller, January 23 , 1808, in Andrew A. Lipscomb et al., eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 11:428; Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805, n Andrew A. Lipscomb et al., eds ., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 3:378.
14. Thomas Jefferson to the Reverend Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 11:428.
15. Id. at 11:430.
16. J. Body, ed., The Papers of Jefferson 1:105.
17. Report of the Committee of Revisors Appointed by the General Assembly of Virginia in MDCCLXXVI (Richmond, Va., 1984) 59-60;
Julian P. Boyd, et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 2:556.
18. In the Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson wrote that the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States and that "no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States, or to the people. . . [and are] withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals." The Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions and Mr. Madison's Report of 1799 2-3.
19. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
20. See Everson, 330 U.S . at 1.
21. One of the early Supreme Court Justices, Joseph Story, wrote that "the whole power over the subject of religion is left ex clusively to the state govern ments , to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions. . ." J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution ? 1879 (1833).
22. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S . 38, 106 ( Rehnquist, J., dissenting) .
23. Daniel Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists Revisited, 56:4 William and Mary Quarterly 805, 812 (1999).
07-06-2006 10:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wvucrazed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,363
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 179
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Fairfax, VA
Post: #26
 
lmfao The Liberty Counsel?? You do realize that Mat Staver and his crew are the ones going around screaming about how Christ is being taken out of Christmas, and that you should boycott Target. 01-wingedeagle They are also associated with those wackos at Exodus Ministries that go around spouting off about how all gays need to be "cured". 03-yawn These folks are the modern day equivilent of the flat earth society. (although, there are STILL people who believe the earth is flat, I'm told)

Anyway, the SCOTUS has a very different interpretation than Good Mr. Staver, as you can see below:

* * *

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
(arranged by date)

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.
07-06-2006 11:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #27
 
wvucrazed Wrote:lmfao The Liberty Counsel?? You do realize that Mat Staver and his crew are the ones going around screaming about how Christ is being taken out of Christmas, and that you should boycott Target. 01-wingedeagle They are also associated with those wackos at Exodus Ministries that go around spouting off about how all gays need to be "cured". 03-yawn These folks are the modern day equivilent of the flat earth society. (although, there are STILL people who believe the earth is flat, I'm told)

Anyway, the SCOTUS has a very different interpretation than Good Mr. Staver, as you can see below:

* * *

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
(arranged by date)

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

And I'm sure the SCOTUS is always right (just like in Dred Scott?). How about instead of attacking someone's association and saying that's why his arguments are wrong, how about you actually show me where he's wrong in his explaination? Oh, and all the Court "rulings" are listed after Staver's 1940 date, which marked the reinterpretation of the 1st Amendment to somehow mean freedom FROM religion instead of its actually stated freedom OF religion.
07-06-2006 11:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #28
 
The Myth of Church-State Separation
David Limbaugh
Friday, August 29, 2003
Recently I have discussed the issues involved in the controversy surrounding Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. Before finally leaving the subject, I want to address this nettlesome notion of the separation of church and state.
Often the sword of separation is used to smother, rather than promote religious liberty. There is nothing in the Constitution mandating a separation of church and state. (The phrase originated in a letter from Thomas Jefferson.) When you hear people talking about the supposed "separation of church and state," what they usually mean is "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment requires a separation." But it doesn't.

Aside from the fact that the Establishment Clause has been erroneously extended to apply to the states as well as Congress, let's look how far the scope of "establishment" has been stretched on both the state and federal levels. It's darn near criminal.

The Framers meant that Congress couldn't establish a national church. They did not intend to forbid every little activity on government property or partially funded by the government. Justice Moore's monument flap is just the tip of the iceberg.

The courts are using the Establishment Clause to scrub Christianity entirely from the public square, including public schools. Their restrictions on religious freedom in schools illustrate the obscene extremes to which the law has been extended.

The separationists contend that public schools, because they are funded by federal and state money, cannot engage in activities that are deemed an endorsement of a religion. Just the slightest nod toward a religion will be enough to trigger an Establishment Clause violation.

Consider the case in which public high school students held their own two-step election, first, to decide whether a student address, possibly containing a prayer, could be delivered at a football game, and second, which student would deliver it. The Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that just by permitting such an election the state was violating the Establishment Clause.

Now seriously, just how far do we have to suspend our disbelief to conclude that the Framers intended to prohibit such an election merely facilitated -- not initiated -- by a public school?

Well, first we have to ignore that the First Amendment restricted the federal Congress only. Second, we have to disregard that it also prohibited Congress from intruding on the states' right to establish religion if they so chose. Third, we have to assume that a local school, which happens to receive funding from both the state and federal governments, is deemed to be an extension of those governments, keeping in mind that there were no such government funded and controlled schools at the time of the nation's founding.

Fourth, we have to find that the students' voluntary action to elect a speaker to deliver a statement that might or might not contain a prayer, with no involvement from the school beyond permitting the election, should be imputed to the state or federal governments -- as if they are the ones choosing to say the prayer.

Fifth, we have to conclude that the reading of the prayer itself is tantamount to establishing a federal or state religion -- notwithstanding that there are thousands of other government-run schools throughout the United States that would be completely unaffected by the prayer and no other part of the nation would be affected by it. (How can we conclude that a single public school in a single community in a single state, by merely permitting and not encouraging its students to choose, on their own, to read a prayer at a football game, constitutes the establishment of a particular denomination as the national or state religion?)

Sixth, we have to assume that you can ignore all these obstacles, even though in the very process you are emasculating that other critically important religion clause of the First Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause, which also guarantees our religious liberty.

By precluding the student-led prayer through these outrageous legal fictions and convoluted reasoning, the Court sanctioned the school's encroachment on the freedom of students to worship as they pleased -- thwarting the very purpose of both First Amendment religion clauses.

The point here is not that it is desirable for the government to endorse religious activities. Rather it is that courts have made the law up as they've gone along, completing mucking up Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and, in the name of protecting religious freedom, have greatly suppressed it.
07-06-2006 11:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wvucrazed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,363
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 179
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Fairfax, VA
Post: #29
 
**James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate." **

T-Monay820 Wrote:And I'm sure the SCOTUS is always right (just like in Dred Scott?). How about instead of attacking someone's association and saying that's why his arguments are wrong, how about you actually show me where he's wrong in his explaination? Oh, and all the Court "rulings" are listed after Staver's 1940 date, which marked the reinterpretation of the 1st Amendment to somehow mean freedom FROM religion instead of its actually stated freedom OF religion.

I would take the Supreme Court's interpretation - which has always been consistent - over the interpretation of kooks like David Limbaugh (who thinks everyone is out to get Christians...) and an even bigger kook Mat Staver. How can you look at what either of these folks say objectively? They are examples of the farthest fringe wing of radical Christianity, and they twist fact and interpretation to suit their agenda. Do YOU personally think it appropriate for one particular religion - i.e. Christianity - to have its tentacles wrapped around our government? How would you feel as a Christian in a country where Muslims ruled according to the tenets of THEIR religion? Or do you really not concern yourself with how Non-Christians feel? They are only God-Hating heathens after all, right?


Below is a good overview of the concept of "Separation of Church and State" and its history. It notes that many conservatives disagree with the concept. Luckily the Supreme Court has been stalwart in protecting the rights of ALL Americans, not just Christians (many of whom seem to think they deserve special rights over other religions for some reason - I have zero clue why.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_..._and_state
07-07-2006 06:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #30
 
wvucrazed Wrote:**James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate." **

You're quoting Grant! lmfao And this guy is more credible for his one statment, than two complete opinion pieces with citations by commentators?

Quote:I would take the Supreme Court's interpretation - which has always been consistent - over the interpretation of kooks like David Limbaugh (who thinks everyone is out to get Christians...) and an even bigger kook Mat Staver. How can you look at what either of these folks say objectively? They are examples of the farthest fringe wing of radical Christianity, and they twist fact and interpretation to suit their agenda. Do YOU personally think it appropriate for one particular religion - i.e. Christianity - to have its tentacles wrapped around our government? How would you feel as a Christian in a country where Muslims ruled according to the tenets of THEIR religion? Or do you really not concern yourself with how Non-Christians feel? They are only God-Hating heathens after all, right?


Below is a good overview of the concept of "Separation of Church and State" and its history. It notes that many conservatives disagree with the concept. Luckily the Supreme Court has been stalwart in protecting the rights of ALL Americans, not just Christians (many of whom seem to think they deserve special rights over other religions for some reason - I have zero clue why.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_..._and_state

No matter what you think about a person, even a crazy person can say something that makes sense. Calling someone a kook doesn't make their argument wrong. How about refuting his argument, I even gave you a second opinion since you didn't feel like refuitng Staver's argument. If I remove the authors name from the article, does it make it any less legitimate of an argument?

PLEASE! Show me where the Christian faith has their "tentacles" wrapped around the government. What law requires that we attend church on Sundays. Or that we force students to recite the Lord's Prayer in school. If anything, the government is attempting to REMOVE Christianity entirley from the public square, and has limited Christians from practicicing their faith (see individual, private prayers in school which can get students suspended).

Oh, and in case you haven't realized the unofficial rules in the Spin Room:
Quote:If you're using Wikipedia as your "source", you've already lost the debate... Wanna see how fast I can change the definition on the site?
07-07-2006 09:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #31
 
Want a Justice's opinion?

"There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' [between church and state]." - U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist
07-07-2006 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #32
 
Quote:If you're using Wikipedia as your "source", you've already lost the debate... Wanna see how fast I can change the definition on the site?

That's an idiotic policy. Just because someone used Wikipedia doesn't mean the facts don't hold. You may as well say that if your source is on the internet, it's bull because I can create another website that has the opposite information on it. Maybe you should tell me why the statements on the particular Wikipedia page are incorrect, instead of poisoning the well.
07-07-2006 12:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fanatical Offline
lost in dreams of hops & barley
*

Posts: 4,180
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 24
I Root For: South Park Cows
Location: Luh-ville
Post: #33
 
You know, Christians have always been good in funding the arts.
[Image: lstjudge.jpg]

I don't really think this matches up to the Sistene Chapel though, but it is a try.
07-08-2006 02:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skipuno Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 321
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #34
 
Personally I think its a good idea to keep an eye on everybody. There are people on right that would try to use the goverment to force there morality on us. However there are also plenty of people on the left who would love to use the goverment to try and modify our behavior in some way, in an effort to bring about some form of social utopia. ( See global warming.)
07-09-2006 09:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #35
 
uhmump95 Wrote:
wvucrazed Wrote:But the underlying thought process that this statue represents - the merging of Christianity and US Government - is truly alarming... because it is happening more and more every day.
I have to disagree with this statement, since "Separation of Church and State" is constantly being used to remove many apsects of Christianity from our daily lives.

This is a truly ironic statement for those of us who are not Christian. The design and structure of the United States was in many ways precisely intended to remove many aspects of Christianity from our daily lives by the Founding Fathers.
07-10-2006 05:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #36
 
Fanatical Wrote:I love freedom, as I said above. Though this church has decided to erect a corruption of one or nation's most loved treasures, they still have a right to do it. We can still wipe our asses with an American flag, so I see no reason to ban this. It is unfortunate that a symbol of freedom has been used to promote a religion.

It is also greatly ironic that they chose a symbol of freedom given by one overtly atheistic nation to the first and greatest overtly secular nation of modern times.
07-10-2006 06:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #37
 
I45owl Wrote:
uhmump95 Wrote:
wvucrazed Wrote:But the underlying thought process that this statue represents - the merging of Christianity and US Government - is truly alarming... because it is happening more and more every day.
I have to disagree with this statement, since "Separation of Church and State" is constantly being used to remove many apsects of Christianity from our daily lives.

This is a truly ironic statement for those of us who are not Christian. The design and structure of the United States was in many ways precisely intended to remove many aspects of Christianity from our daily lives by the Founding Fathers.

That is truly one of the worst interpretations of the 1st I have ever heard.
07-10-2006 06:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.