|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 01/06/2005 : 23:24:34 [Permalink]
|
I'm thinking that in a thread promoting the quotes of others, we need to use some quotes in relation to this topic of the 1st Amendment.
According to the record of September 3, three motions of special interest here were defeated on that day. These motions restricted the ban in the proposed amendment to establishments preferring one sect above others. The first motion would have made the clause in the amendment read: “Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others…” After the failure of this motion and of another to kill the amendment, a motion was made to change it to read: “Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.” The final defeated motion restated the same thought differently: “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another…” The Senate then adopted the language of the House: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion…”
The failure of these three motions, each of which seemed to express a narrow intent, and the adoption of the House version prove that the Senate intended something broader than merely a ban on preference to one sect. Yet, if anything is really clear about the problem of “meaning” and “intent” it is that little is clear; when the Senate returned to the clause six days later, it altered the House amendment to read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion…” Like the three previously defeated motions, this one had the unmistakable meaning of limiting the ban to acts that prefer one denomination over others or that, to put it simply, establish a single state church. taken from The origins of the First Amendment establishment clause (1789)
from Leonard Levy, The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment (New York: MacMillan, 1986)http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/levy-1stamend.html
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 23:30:17 [Permalink]
|
[83] The Senate's wording provoked the House to take action that made its intent clear, as the next step in the drafting of the amendment revealed. In voting on the Senate's proposed amendments, the House accepted some and rejected others, including the Senate's article on religion. To resolve the disagreement between the two branches, the House proposed a joint conference committee. The Senate refused to recede from its position but agreed to the proposal for a conference committee. The committee, a strong and distinguished one, consisted of Madison as chairman of the House conferees, joined by Sherman and Vining, and Ellsworth as chairman of the Senate conferees, joined by Paterson and Carroll. Four of the six men had been influential members of the Constitutional Convention. The House members of the conference flatly refused to accept the Senate's version of the amendment on religion, indicating that the House would not be satisfied with merely a ban on preference of one sect or religion over others. The Senate conferees abandoned the Senate's version, and the amendment was redrafted to give it its present phraseology. On September, Ellsworth reported to the Senate that the House would accept the Senate's version of the other amendments provided that the amendment on religion “shall read as follows: Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” 0n the same day, the House sent a message to the Senate verifying Ellsworth's report. On the next day, September 25, the Senate by a two-thirds vote accepted the condition laid down by the House.Congress had passed the establishment clause.
The one fact that stands out is that Congress very carefully considered and rejected the wording that seems to imply the narrow interpretation. The House's rejection of the Senate's version of the amendment shows that the House did not [84] intend to frame an amendment that banned only congressional support of one sect, church, denomination, or religion. The Senate three times defeated versions of the amendment embodying that narrow interpretation, on a fourth vote adopted such a version, and finally abandoned it in the face of uncompromising hostility by the House. The amendment's framers definitely intended something broader than the narrow interpretation which some judges and scholars have given it. At bottom the amendment expressed the fact that the Framers of the Constitution had not empowered Congress to act in the field of religion. The “great object” of the Bill of Rights, as Madison explicitly said when introducing his draft of amendments to the House, was to “limit and qualify the powers of Government” for the purpose of making certain that the powers granted could not be exercised in forbidden fields, such as religion.
taken from that same source noted above.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 08:55:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Besides which, to nationalize Christmas is to show respect for Christianity over, say, Hinduism. The 1st Amendment, by your definition or mine, prohibits that. As it also prohibits "moments of prayer" in public schools, as not all religions share prayer modalities. from Dave
True, Dave, but in not showing respect to a particular sect of Christianity, the interpretation of the 1st Amendment by Madison is not violated. When you presume that "an establishment of religion" means "a religion", then you have eliminated the need for the word "establishment", which is exactly as some presume to do "congress shall make no law respecting a religion", which it clearly does not say.
"Religion", in this case, means all religions either seperately or as a group. That would mean any governmental advocation of religion is taboo. Of course we are talking about institutionally lead prayer in school or legislation which favors one religion over another, not just between sects.
In several Supereme Court cases dating back to 1872, the government is referred to as incompetent to judge on matters of religion whether it be for good or ill.
As such, the real assault on the government by religion did not start in earnest until the Red Scare of McCarthyism. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 09:25:36 [Permalink]
|
"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 13:23:11 [Permalink]
|
"Religion", in this case, means all religions either seperately or as a group. That would mean any governmental advocation of religion is taboo. Of course we are talking about institutionally lead prayer in school or legislation which favors one religion over another, not just between sects.
If this is true, why do we see the promotion of going to church or synagogue or Mosque in a federally funded advertising campaign?
The court ruling to forbid state sponsored prayer in school did far more than that, it placed a stigma on any prayer offered by a teacher and, recently, even by students. Clearly, the second clause "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" has been violated by the very court meant to uphold such freedom. I agree, that according to a common understanding, state dictated prayers can run into trouble, but simply allowing a teacher, administrator, or student to pray publicly is common courtesy and tolerance of other's religious belief, which is the reasoning behind the second clause. When governments began to prohibit any display of religion they clearly violate the 2nd clause.
What would have been the correct ruling? What it should not have been was any tone of prohibition of religious freedom of individuals, including teachers and administrators. Should a teacher or principle be allowed to publicly pray over the loud speaker system at the beginning of a day. Absolutely! Should the state mandate it? Absolutely not! It should be left to the choice and discretion of the individual. Should a teacher or admin. be required to leave their personal religion at the door when they enter the school? God forbid! Shall they leave all there moral background and reasonings hidden from view and be required to secularize every word they speak? People, can't you see how this is an intolerable position to place any religious person in? When I'm kind and forgiving, or strong against a bad behavior must I hide my reasons for being so to my students? This "politically correct" position that public employees are placed in is totally evil. They are forced to live a lie to a degree and be untrue to themselves and their conscience to apease another and keep their job. Thomas Paine said,
"But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe."
Regarding prayer: Is prayer not also free speech?
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/07/2005 13:27:45 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 13:44:00 [Permalink]
|
Thanksgiving Proclamation
City of New York
October 3, 1789
by: George Washington
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the greatest degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executived and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. This is reprinted from George Washington: A Collection edited by W.B. Allen and published in 1988 by LibertyClassics.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 13:46:44 [Permalink]
|
"May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy."
Who penned this blessing?
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 13:48:39 [Permalink]
|
"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." George Washington in a letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 14:06:53 [Permalink]
|
The church is near, but the way is icy. The tavern is far, but I will walk carefully. -- Ukranian Proverb
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 14:29:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
"Religion", in this case, means all religions either seperately or as a group. That would mean any governmental advocation of religion is taboo. Of course we are talking about institutionally lead prayer in school or legislation which favors one religion over another, not just between sects.
If this is true, why do we see the promotion of going to church or synagogue or Mosque in a federally funded advertising campaign?
The court ruling to forbid state sponsored prayer in school did far more than that, it placed a stigma on any prayer offered by a teacher and, recently, even by students. Clearly, the second clause "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" has been violated by the very court meant to uphold such freedom. I agree, that according to a common understanding, state dictated prayers can run into trouble, but simply allowing a teacher, administrator, or student to pray publicly is common courtesy and tolerance of other's religious belief, which is the reasoning behind the second clause. When governments began to prohibit any display of religion they clearly violate the 2nd clause.
What would have been the correct ruling? What it should not have been was any tone of prohibition of religious freedom of individuals, including teachers and administrators. Should a teacher or principle be allowed to publicly pray over the loud speaker system at the beginning of a day. Absolutely! Should the state mandate it? Absolutely not! It should be left to the choice and discretion of the individual. Should a teacher or admin. be required to leave their personal religion at the door when they enter the school? God forbid! Shall they leave all there moral background and reasonings hidden from view and be required to secularize every word they speak? People, can't you see how this is an intolerable position to place any religious person in? When I'm kind and forgiving, or strong against a bad behavior must I hide my reasons for being so to my students? This "politically correct" position that public employees are placed in is totally evil. They are forced to live a lie to a degree and be untrue to themselves and their conscience to apease another and keep their job. Thomas Paine said,
"But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe."
Regarding prayer: Is prayer not also free speech?
Prayer is free speech when done by an individual. All case law supports this. However, institutionally led prayer in public schools and prayer done in public schools as part of the instructional day have consistantly been struck down as the government aiding religion. The teachers are not forced to leave their religion behind at the schoolhouse door, however, they may not inflict it upon the students. Students and teachers may pray on their own during unstructured time. No ruling has been made which denies this. The trouble comes when a school sponsored event forwards religion. (Now we are talking about assemblies and graduation ceremonies which have a secular purpose.) When one is dealing with unacceptable behavior, there are reasons which are secular in nature. Not mentioning the religious ones does not require one to abandon such feelings.
There is no living a lie to any degree as it allows people to believe whatever they wish. It does prevent people of authority from inflicting their particular theology on students. The religious upbringing is the sole responsibility of the parents of the student, not the instructors or administration of the public schools.
Public employees are placed in the situation that they have to clearly distinguish when they are speaking as themselves and when they are speaking as agents of the government.
The funding of ad campaigns encouraging church attendance is improper. Where have you seen this? (Although, Bush's "Faith Base Initiatives" tries to blur the lines between religion and government.)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 19:41:00 [Permalink]
|
Prayer is free speech when done by an individual.
That is just what I'm talking about, individuals praying in public, not forced or coerced, by by there own motivations. Is the attempt to stifle any individual teacher or administrator praying in public actually a violation of their free speech rights? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 19:55:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Prayer is free speech when done by an individual.
That is just what I'm talking about, individuals praying in public, not forced or coerced, by by there own motivations. Is the attempt to stifle any individual teacher or administrator praying in public actually a violation of their free speech rights?
As long as that prayer is a personal and private one, I will defend the person's right to do it to the bloody death, no matter where he's praying.
It becomes wrong when that person attempt to lead others, such as a public school classroom in prayer. The classroom should remain secular -- religion should be taught in the churches and the home.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 20:38:50 [Permalink]
|
INFIDEL, n. In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion; in Constantinople, one who does. A kind of scoundrel imperfectly reverent of, and niggardly contributory to, divines, ecclesiastics, popes, parsons, canons, monks, mollahs, voodoos, presbyters, hierophants, prelates, obeah-men, abbes, nuns, missionaries, exhorters, deacons, friars, hadjis, high-priests, muezzins, brahmins, medicine-men, confessors, eminences, elders, primates, prebendaries, pilgrims, prophets, imaums, beneficiaries, clerks, vicars-choral, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, preachers, padres, abbotesses, caloyers, palmers, curates, patriarchs, bonezs, santons, beadsmen, canonesses, residentiaries, diocesans, deans, subdeans, rural deans, abdals, charm-sellers, archdeacons, hierarchs, class-leaders, incumbents, capitulars, sheiks, talapoins, postulants, scribes, gooroos, precentors, beadles, fakeers, sextons, reverences, revivalists, cenobites, perpetual curates, chaplains, mudjoes, readers, novices, vicars, pastors, rabbis, ulemas, lamas, sacristans, vergers, dervises, lectors, church wardens, cardinals, prioresses, suffragans, acolytes, rectors, cures, sophis, mutifs and pumpums. -- Ambrose Bierce
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 22:08:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Is the attempt to stifle any individual teacher or administrator praying in public actually a violation of their free speech rights?
Yes, which is why I now challenge you to present such attempts via citations of actual cases.
After all, if what you're claiming is not actually happening, then you're doing nothing but blowing smoke. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 22:27:38 [Permalink]
|
"If Christ were here today there is one thing he would not be, a Christian." - Mark Twain
"We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us."
- Mark Twain
"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's." - Mark Twain
"The altar cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next." - Mark Twain
"I have a religion--but you will call it blasphemy. It is that there is a God for the rich man but none for the poor.....Perhaps your religion will sustain you, will feed you--I place no dependence in mine. Our religions are alike, though, in one respect--neither can make a man happy when he is out of luck." - - Mark Twain
"Our illogical God is all-powerful in name, but impotent in fact; the Great Spirit is not all-powerful, but does the very best he can for his Indian and does it free of charge." - - Mark Twain |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
