| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| separation of church and state | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2006, 08:52 PM (239 Views) | |
| pianojerome | Nov 29 2006, 08:52 PM Post #1 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'm not sure I understand this concept entirely. As I understand it, it means that the state does not sponsor one particular religion over others. It also means that the state cannot prosecute people for practicing or believing in particular religions, or for refusing to practice or believe in certain other religions. So this brings me to a few questions. There was a discussion earlier in the year about a big cross that had to be removed from a public hillside in California. It was a war memorial, but because it was a cross, it had to be removed because of "separation of church and state." If this concept allows all people to freely practice their own religions, and if it prevents the government from restricting religious belief/practice, then why was this cross removed? Doesn't "separation of church and state" prevent the government from prosecuting (levying a fine if the cross was not removed) people for their religious practice? (For many of those who died in battle, a cross would be an appropriate memorial.) In France, there was recently a new law (2004) that banned the wearing of "ostentatious" religious symbols in public schools: turbins, crosses, and yarmulkas, for example. This was done in the name of "laïcité" -- separation of church and state. Well, if "laïcité", separation of church and state, prevents the government from restricing religious practice and belief, then why should students not be allowed to wear religious symbols which they believe they are religiously obligated to wear (or decide to wear on their own accord for religious reasons)? Furthermore, why should they be expelled from universities for wearing such "ostentatious" religious symbols? Doesn't "separation of church and state" protect against religious prosecution? President Bush has been criticized for praying to God before making important decisions. The reason? Separation of Church and State. But does this concept not allow our own president to practice his own religion? As I understand the concept, Bush cannot force his religion on other people, nor can he prosecute others for practicing or not practicing particular religions. It also does not allow him to make decisions "in the name of God." But why should he not be allowed to practice his own religion by praying to God for help and advice before making important decisions? It's a complicated subject, isn't it? |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 29 2006, 08:57 PM Post #2 |
|
I believe some wanted the cross removed because government funds (public money which should be religiously neutral in theory) were used to erect the cross. As long as the government doesn't enforce or create laws based on religion, or prosecute people for harmlessly practicing religion, then I think government officials, private citizens, etc...all have the right to speak openly on religion, and constituents and neighbors alike have the right not to like that person for such actions. |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | Nov 29 2006, 10:16 PM Post #3 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I agree with you, and disagree with my parents on this point. Missionaries have the "right" to go from door to door preaching Christianity; and the residents of those homes have the "right" to listen or to not listen, to like the missionaries or to not like them. Muslim girls have the "right" to go to school wearing head scarfs, and other students have the "right" to be offended or not, to convert to Islam or not, to respect the girls or to disrespect them. People have the "right" to hang up whatever religious symbols in public that they want (Christmas lights, Christmas trees, menorahs, religious billboards, etc) and passersby have the "right" to be offended or to not be offended, to take notice or to not take notice, to like it or to not like it, to complain or to compliment or to simply go on with life. It's not my problem if you are offended by something I do or say. It's not your problem if I'm offended by something you do or say. That's not to say we shouldn't try to not offend each other -- and I am always trying to avoid offending others, and if I mess up, I try and fix my behavior if possible -- but life does go on. IMO. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 29 2006, 10:19 PM Post #4 |
|
We should try to respect each other as much as possible...that's a good point you brought up - often lost in this debate. |
![]() |
|
| ny1911 | Nov 29 2006, 10:20 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
Standard replies apply: Separation is not mentioned in the consititution, though it has become a catch phrase in society. The BoR stipulates freedom *of* religion, not freedon *from* religion. What we seen in practice, though, is likley to be different |
|
So live your life and live it well. There's not much left of me to tell. I just got back up each time I fell. | |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Nov 30 2006, 04:30 AM Post #6 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This is a direct reference to the official "established" Church of England of Great Britain. In addition, Article VI states, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." ...the idea that Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom means only freedom to worship and not also freedom from religious intrusion in the affairs of government (and government-sponsored public programs) is simply not well-supported by the evidence - at least not if one interprets establishment of religion broadly as any activity that might establish a particular religious preference, or bias, by the government in favor of one particular religious views over anyone other. a little wiki cut and paste... |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Nov 30 2006, 04:48 AM Post #7 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
In the example of the hillside cross, it had been erected with private funds on private land, which was subsequently donated (or sold, I can't remember) to the public cemetery. The claim then became that in the process of the cross becoming public property, its presence had become a public endorsement of the Christian faith. Personally, I think this is a ridiculous claim, and a terrible misreading of the establishment clause of the Bill of Rights. PJ, you have correctly identified that this clause is all about not creating an official, state-sponsored church. Sadly, it has often been used as a club to try to beat out any expression of religious faith in public life. The meaning of the phrase "or to prevent the free exercise thereof" would seem to be pretty clear. Freedom of religion, as defined in the Constitution, does not grant everyone the individual right to never encounter, or even be offended by, other people's religious beliefs or physical expressions of those beliefs. Nor does the Constitution even prohibit religious expression in or on public properties. All that the Constitution says is that Congress (and by judicial action, this has been extended to the entire government) shall make no law establishing an officially endorsed state or national church or religion, to exclude any other (or no) church or religion, or to offer preferential status to its members; or restricting anyone's individual practice of faith. It must treat all religious faiths equally - and in accordance with the wording of the clause, equally permissively - and without preference given to one over the other. Obviously, the establishment clause to far too often misapplied - and often, deliberately so, by people who are too smart to not really understand the true intent of the language. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Nov 30 2006, 05:29 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
People who do not agree to have religous symbols on government property believe that this is the correct interpretation and the number of people who have the opposite view and persist in asserting this one must be very rare if they exist at all. About whether or not a cross might be in a cemetary I would want to see more facts before forming an opinion. I think that too often in this type of a discussion we see an inflammatory example to call the rule into doubt. I do not expect to nor should I have to encouter anyone's particular religious symbols relating to the function of government. This is how we have always done it in my lifetime as far as I can recall and with this I am in complete agreement. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Nov 30 2006, 06:02 AM Post #9 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
We exist, and there are quite a few of us, actually. What I said was hardly a call for a theocracy. Rather, it was a call for public entities to not live in a pretend world (one that they've been trying to live in for at least the last thirty or forty years) where religious faith does not exist and is not a significant part of our collective existence; and once they commit to living in the real world, that they be even-handed in such recognition and non-interference. If the Ohio Statehouse, for example, grants the right for various groups to erect temporary exhibits on its lawn, then it must treat these groups equally, and not prohibit one because it may be a cause based in religious faith. It must not, merely because it deals with religion, deny a group who, in accordance with this policy, wants to erect a representation of the Nativity somewhere on the grounds - provided it offers equal access to the lawn to all other religious and non-religious groups. The public forum is exactly that. To only allow one religion access to express its views becomes an endorsement, an establishment, of that religion. To prohibit that religion the same public access and freedoms granted to other entities is not only a breach of the "free exercise" clause, but it is also discrimination based on religion, a violation of equal protection and treatment under the law. The government cannot provide a place on military bases for Christians to worship, but not Jews or Muslims. Neither can it, in a perverted logical twist, ban all religious gatherings on the basis that all faiths are being treated equally, because it runs foul of the "free exercise" clause. I don't need a Nativity scene on the Statehouse lawn to worship my God, and I don't claim, or want, greater access to the public forum for my faith than that granted for other groups. But neither do I accept that I must be granted less access, and discriminated against, merely on the basis of my religious views. It's simply a matter of equal treatment under the law. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Nov 30 2006, 06:11 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I'm afraid I didn't express myself clearly enough. I was simply referring to to the last part of your post- "the establishment clause to far too often misapplied - and often, deliberately so, by people who are too smart to not really understand the true intent of the language" Me: "the number of people who have the opposite view and persist in asserting this one must be very rare if they exist at all." ie "people who are too smart to not really understand the true intent" I am quite sure you exist, Sir. LOL. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










4:39 PM Jul 10