Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Hide the Irony Meter!
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 06/29/2006 :  20:04:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by pleco...

See, it if it doesn't say it literally, then you are interpreting, and we all know that one must take things literally in important papers/books, otherwise the whole damn thing is open for interpretation, then what do you have?
"Hey, how come Andrew gets to get up? If he gets up, we'll all get up. It'll be anarchy!" -- John Bender
Go to Top of Page

lifeloss
New Member

5 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  07:56:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send lifeloss a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Separation of church and state! Separation of church and state! Separation of church and state! I'll damned well scream it so long as it's at risk!

Were you stomping your feet with your fingers in your ears while you were screaming this? Recess is over, come back inside with the big kids.

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

How in the world do you extract an idea like separation of church and state from an amendment that prohibits CONGRESS from making a LAW that ESTABLISHES a religion. Does that say anything about praying in school? Why can't a STATE funded school lead a prayer, or even allow a prayer for that matter, in school? They aren't congress are they? Is giving funding to a faith based drug rehab clinic ESTABLISHING a religion by the federal government? According to the constitution, if no law has been made then this amendment hasn't been broken. So, government can support religion and religion can support and influence government.

quote:
How is that something other than the separation of church and state? What, is the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution actually prohibiting parking meters?

How? Because, IT DOESN'T SAY SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! Why don't you say, "the 200+ year tradition that congress can't make a law establishing a religion."? Doesn't fit your agenda does it? Doesn't quite sound so dramatic. Kinda sounds like maybe religion is not prohibited from permeating government but only prohibited from being established by congressional law. Imagine that! And no, they aren't talking about parking meters. That's because parking meters have as much to do with the establishment of religion as your bleak understanding of the constitution and our founding fathers intentions while writing it.

You forget that little part about not, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What is free exercise? Doesn't that mean uninhibited ability to worship, or not worship, as you see fit regardless of where you are or who might hear you? They're turning off microphones during speeches at high schools for crying out loud. A valedictorian can't even reference the reason why they achieved what they did; God. How is that following the establishment clause? What does that have to do with congress making a law?

Isn't atheism a federally recognized religion? So, by rooting out all religion from government we are establishing atheism, right?

quote:
Europe's many long and bloody religious wars were the very good reasons that the framers of the Constitution hoped to avoid such bloodshed in the new nation, by creating a government which itself was secular and religion-neutral in a nation of passionate religions.

I don't doubt that the framers wanted to avoid wars, as you say, but where do you get that they wanted a secular government? And by the way, these wars were fought by countries who had ESTABLISHED a religion. The country was the church and the church was the country. They weren't merely countries that supported several religions or allowed things like prayer in public schools or the ten commandments in our court rooms. That is why, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

quote:
Those who are now saying otherwise are either idiots, or are lying historical revisionists who want to establish a bloody-handed theocracy.

A bloody-handed theocracy, how dramatic! Lying historical revisionists! The funny thing is that you add soooooo many words and ideas to the constitution and then turn around and say whoever doesn't agree is an idiot. Typical.

I know it will be hard but it's time to face the fact that the United States of America was founded by a group of men who, for the most part, were evangelical Christians. They used the bible as the #1 reference while writing the constitution! You're telling me that they broke the 1st amendment before and after they wrote it!

Benjamin Franklin was not a model Christian by any means but even he understood the importance of faith. In 1749 he wrote a plan for education in our new country. In it he says that schools need to teach “the necessity of a public religion.." and what was the most important?..."and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." He chose a new testament verse as the motto for a hospital in Pennsylvania.

On May 12, 1779, George Washington was speaking to the Delaware Indian Chiefs and told them that children needed to learn, above all, the "religion of Jesus Christ."

Alexander Hamilton said that his goal was to spread the two things he thought most important over the whole world. Christianity and a constitution formed under Christianity. This was while trying to form the Christian Constitutional Society with Reverend James Bayard right before he died. Here is a great quote from an unknown author in a letters-to-the-editor I saw.

"The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights."

It is ridiculous to think that our founding fathers intent was to completely exclude religion from our government. It was not. They were merely protecting the rights of those who had different beliefs. They allowed themselves the right to further the cause of their beliefs even within the governmental forum. They openly quoted and referenced the bible while creating the constitution, using it to mold our country's most sacred document.

Don't push your beliefs on others in this country by rooting out references to God and the bible throughout our country's foundation. The constitution guarantees that EVERYONE has the right to practice their beliefs. They can even be practiced at a government fund
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  08:06:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
quote:
lifeloss:
They openly quoted and referenced the bible while creating the constitution, using it to mold our country's most sacred document.

Source please.

There isn't a single reference to God in the constitution. Are you saying that a Deist like Jefferson was using the bible for a guide? That is nonsense…

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  08:14:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
I await lifeloss to also quote the evangelical founding fathers who also stated not so very nice things about religion or christianity, in the interest of a fair and balanced analysis.

quote:
How in the world do you extract an idea like separation of church and state from an amendment that prohibits CONGRESS from making a LAW that ESTABLISHES a religion. Does that say anything about praying in school? Why can't a STATE funded school lead a prayer, or even allow a prayer for that matter, in school? They aren't congress are they? Is giving funding to a faith based drug rehab clinic ESTABLISHING a religion by the federal government? According to the constitution, if no law has been made then this amendment hasn't been broken. So, government can support religion and religion can support and influence government.


So if a state funded school decides to lead a prayer to Vishnu, you wouldn't have a problem with your child doing that? Or is it only christian prayers which are OK?


by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Edited by - pleco on 06/30/2006 08:16:19
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  08:29:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
Also lifeloss, it took an act of congress to add “In God We Trust” to our money and “one nation under God” to the pledge of allegiance. Both acts generally establish a state religion because Buddhists, atheists, agnostics and many other religions or perceived religions have no God belief.

Seems to me that you should oppose those acts based on your take on the establishment clause of the first amendment. If you take strict constructionist view, and really, even if you don't, those additions to the money and the pledge are simply unconstitutional.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  08:36:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
I'll just take some choice bits:

quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

How in the world do you extract an idea like separation of church and state from an amendment that prohibits CONGRESS from making a LAW that ESTABLISHES a religion. Does that say anything about praying in school? Why can't a STATE funded school lead a prayer, or even allow a prayer for that matter, in school? They aren't congress are they? Is giving funding to a faith based drug rehab clinic ESTABLISHING a religion by the federal government? According to the constitution, if no law has been made then this amendment hasn't been broken. So, government can support religion and religion can support and influence government.

How is leading prayer in school not establishing a religion? If there's anything more pervasive in everday life and more influential on kids development than school, I don't know what is. If a state funded school leads prayer of a certain group, that means the state endorses that specific religion over all others. If that isn't an attempt at establishing religion, I don't know what is.

The same goes for faith based initiatives. Why endorse faith based initiatives over others? If that isn't an attempt of establishing a religion, I don't know what is.

quote:
quote:
How is that something other than the separation of church and state? What, is the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution actually prohibiting parking meters?

How? Because, IT DOESN'T SAY SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! Why don't you say, "the 200+ year tradition that congress can't make a law establishing a religion."? Doesn't fit your agenda does it? Doesn't quite sound so dramatic. Kinda sounds like maybe religion is not prohibited from permeating government but only prohibited from being established by congressional law. Imagine that! And no, they aren't talking about parking meters. That's because parking meters have as much to do with the establishment of religion as your bleak understanding of the constitution and our founding fathers intentions while writing it.

You forget that little part about not, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What is free exercise? Doesn't that mean uninhibited ability to worship, or not worship, as you see fit regardless of where you are or who might hear you? They're turning off microphones during speeches at high schools for crying out loud. A valedictorian can't even reference the reason why they achieved what they did; God. How is that following the establishment clause? What does that have to do with congress making a law?

No, free exercise does not mean uninhibited ability persé. In constitutional terms, it means uninhibited unless infringing on the uninhibited ability of others. Prayer in school is such a thing. It infringes on and sets apart the children who do not endorse that particular prayer of that particular religion.

quote:
Isn't atheism a federally recognized religion? So, by rooting out all religion from government we are establishing atheism, right?

No, we aren't. There is a difference between not mentioning religion and endorsing atheism. Government must do the first and does not do the second.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  09:04:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss

quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Separation of church and state! Separation of church and state! Separation of church and state! I'll damned well scream it so long as it's at risk!

Were you stomping your feet with your fingers in your ears while you were screaming this? Recess is over, come back inside with the big kids.

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

How in the world do you extract an idea like separation of church and state from an amendment that prohibits CONGRESS from making a LAW that ESTABLISHES a religion. Does that say anything about praying in school?


130 years of case law says yes.

quote:
Why can't a STATE funded school lead a prayer, or even allow a prayer for that matter, in school?


Schools may not have institutionally lead prayer per Abington v. Schempp (based on the earlier Minor v. Cincinatti Board of Education, 1872) Schools may not prohibit individual students from praying on their own time at school.

quote:

They aren't congress are they?


Please read the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

quote:

Is giving funding to a faith based drug rehab clinic ESTABLISHING a religion by the federal government? According to the constitution, if no law has been made then this amendment hasn't been broken. So, government can support religion and religion can support and influence government.


Established case law in Lemon v. Kurtzman and the Marsh decision draws the line between establishment and ceremonial diesm. As such, since policies and funding have the force of law, they must abide by the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendments. The government has been held incompetent to judge matters of faith and is prohibited from aiding or retarding religion.

quote:

quote:
How is that something other than the separation of church and state? What, is the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution actually prohibiting parking meters?

How? Because, IT DOESN'T SAY SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! Why don't you say, "the 200+ year tradition that congress can't make a law establishing a religion."? Doesn't fit your agenda does it? Doesn't quite sound so dramatic. Kinda sounds like maybe religion is not prohibited from permeating government but only prohibited from being established by congressional law. Imagine that! And no, they aren't talking about parking meters. That's because parking meters have as much to do with the establishment of religion as your bleak understanding of the constitution and our founding fathers intentions while writing it.

You forget that little part about not, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What is free exercise? Doesn't that mean uninhibited ability to worship, or not worship, as you see fit regardless of where you are or who might hear you? They're turning off microphones during speeches at high schools for crying out loud. A valedictorian can't even reference the reason why they achieved what they did; God. How is that following the establishment clause? What does that have to do with congress making a law?



It is following the 1st and 14th Amendments by someone acting as agent for the government. Valedectorians act as such when they speak at a school sanctioned event. As long as they are not in front of a microphone, they are free to express their religion. Another thing you forget is that case law interprets the Constitution and establishes a basis for the seperation of church and state concept. It has for over 130 years.

quote:

Isn't atheism a federally recognized religion? So, by rooting out all religion from government we are establishing atheism, right?



Atheism is lack of a God belief. It is not a religion which requires a belief in a higher power. Atheism is a nice way to put NONE on dogtags under the religion marker.

quote:

quote:
Europe's many long and bloody religious wars were the very good reasons that the framers of the Constitution hoped to avoid such bloodshed in the new nation, by creating a government which itself was secular and religion-neutral in a nation of passionate religions.

I don't doubt that the framers wanted to avoid wars, as you say, but where do you get that they wanted a secular government? And by the way, these wars were fought by countries who had ESTABLISHED a religion. The country was the church and the church was the country. They weren't merely countries that supported several religions or allowed things like prayer in public schools or the ten commandments in our court rooms. That is why, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

quote:
Those who are now saying otherwise are either idiots, or are lying historical revisionists who want to establish a bloody-handed theocracy.

A bloody-handed theocracy, how dramatic! Lying historical revisionists! The funny thing is that you add soooooo many words and ideas to the constitution and then turn around and say whoever doesn't agree is an idiot. Typical.

I know it will be hard but it's time to face the fact that the United States of America was founded by a group of men who, for the most part, were evangelical Christians. They used the bible as the #1 reference while writing the constitution! You're telling me that they broke the 1st amendment before

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  10:05:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Don't push your beliefs on others in this country by rooting out references to God and the bible throughout our country's foundation. The constitution guarantees that EVERYONE has the right to practice their beliefs. They can even be practiced at a government funded entity like school or in a courtroom.
The Consitution does indeed guarentee everyone's right to pratice their beliefs -- and lack of them as well. If a student feels the need to pray in school, s/he is perfectly free to do so. It is my understanding that, around exam time, a great many do exactly that.

I've spent some time in various courtrooms, and if you want to see spontainous prayer in a government installation, federal or state, that's a good place to find a lot of it.

What the Constitution says, in esscence, is that the government and/or it's minions can not force anyone to pratice any religion, through prayer or other ceremony, nor can it favor any religion over any others.

Hell life, if you feel the urge to pray in the State House foyer, I, the atheist, will guard your back whilst you do it. But you cannot forceably demand that I join you.





"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!

Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1888 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  10:09:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss

quote:
How is that something other than the separation of church and state? What, is the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution actually prohibiting parking meters?

How? Because, IT DOESN'T SAY SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! Why don't you say, "the 200+ year tradition that congress can't make a law establishing a religion."? Doesn't fit your agenda does it?

Get a grip lifeloss it may not use those words as such, but it was succintly paraphrase as such by Thomas Jefferson.
quote:
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 & State.


We are not making shit up here. Apologetics just aren't necessary when reason, research, and logic are employed.

emphasis added

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

lifeloss
New Member

5 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  14:12:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send lifeloss a Private Message
To Moakley:
quote:
Get a grip lifeloss it may not use those words as such, but it was succintly paraphrase as such by Thomas Jefferson.

Just a small amount of research here would have kept you from posting this reply, Moakley. January 1st letter to the Danbury Baptist convention, Danbury, Connecticut. Jefferson was speaking about a one-way wall where government had no say in church matters and could not affect their practiced faith yet it did not block the church from teaching these principles. It was to keep the government out of church but make sure Christian principles always stayed in government. Jefferson was using an analogy from one of the convention's own pastors.

Putting that aside, who says that a letter to a church can be taken to convey the meaning of the constitution? Is it a state paper? In that case, all the evangelical founding fathers wrote countless letters about their faith and the need for God in our society. Doesn't this prove, according to your line of thinking, that the constitution should be interpreted with a Christian view? Their intent is Christian at its core isn't it? A single personal document doesn't qualify to interpret the constitution.

To filthy:
I was tickled by your reply. Indeed many test-takers and criminals suddenly find the need for God and prayer.

To Valiant Dancer:
quote:
130 years of case law says yes.

Since when is case law exempt from scrutiny. This figure is misleading at best. Just because liberal activist justices made a decision 130 years ago and certain individuals have upheld that decision over the years doesn't make it correct.

quote:
Schools may not have institutionally lead prayer per Abington v. Schempp (based on the earlier Minor v. Cincinatti Board of Education, 1872) Schools may not prohibit individual students from praying on their own time at school.

I know why they can't. I want to know how it contradicts the 1st amendment.

quote:
Please read the 14th Amendment of the Constitution

How does an amendment that was added to guarantee freed slaves the same rights as everyone else relevant here? Even if it is, it wasn't ratified until 1868. What impact does it have on the original intent of the 1st amendment which was ratified some 77 years earlier?

quote:
It is following the 1st and 14th Amendments by someone acting as agent for the government. Valedectorians act as such when they speak at a school sanctioned event. As long as they are not in front of a microphone, they are free to express their religion

This is nonsense. The difference is amplification? That makes NO sense. By telling them not to talk about God is directly denying them their 1st amendment rights. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

quote:
But not enforced or lead by that government entity

Not allowing public prayer and forcing silence is directly sanctioning atheism.

To tomk80:
quote:
How is leading prayer in school not establishing a religion? If there's anything more pervasive in everday life and more influential on kids development than school, I don't know what is. If a state funded school leads prayer of a certain group, that means the state endorses that specific religion over all others. If that isn't an attempt at establishing religion, I don't know what is.


1) The school is not congress
2) Congress is not making a law saying the students have to join in the prayer


I concede that as a Christian I would not want my child to be subject to a pagan prayer. But it is my job to teach my child at HOME. What a concept! So, when my children are growing up they will be subject to everything and choose as they will. Just as I did. This country was founded by Christian men using Christian principles whether you like it or not. Take it or leave it. This is not a hindu nation or a buddhist nation. The difference in this country and many others is that hindus and buddhists, as well as others, can worship freely without fear of punishment, because, there is no national religion that everyone must follow. That is the first amendment's intention. It is in following with this amendment to have the ten commandments displayed publicly. Why? Because that is what our laws are based on. It may be Christian but that is reality. Do we deny our heritage for the sake of religious silence (sees smirks on your faces) . That's where you all are wrong. You would forsake this countries great heritage (for the most part at least) to uproot God from everything.

This is all I have time for now. Thank you for your replies.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  14:31:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss

It is in following with this amendment to have the ten commandments displayed publicly. Why? Because that is what our laws are based on.
Which article or amendment to the Constitution is based upon honoring one's parents? Which is based upon the prohibition of adultery? Where does the Constitution say "remember the Sabbath?"
quote:
It may be Christian but that is reality.
No, it's a delusion. Three out of twelve Commandments (the main ten, plus the two Jesus mentioned) are typically laws in all jurisdictions in the United States of America. Prohibitions against murder and theft do not appear in the Constitution. I'm unsure about perjury. When I've got more time, I'll have to look that up. Assuming it's actually defined in the Constitution, that gives you 1 out of 12 Commandments in that document, and you want to claim the one is based on the other? Pull the other one.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  14:32:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
Repeated post since you seem to miss my post:

I await lifeloss to also quote the evangelical founding fathers who also stated not so very nice things about religion or christianity, in the interest of a fair and balanced analysis.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How in the world do you extract an idea like separation of church and state from an amendment that prohibits CONGRESS from making a LAW that ESTABLISHES a religion. Does that say anything about praying in school? Why can't a STATE funded school lead a prayer, or even allow a prayer for that matter, in school? They aren't congress are they? Is giving funding to a faith based drug rehab clinic ESTABLISHING a religion by the federal government? According to the constitution, if no law has been made then this amendment hasn't been broken. So, government can support religion and religion can support and influence government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So if a state funded school decides to lead a prayer to Vishnu, you wouldn't have a problem with your child doing that? Or is it only christian prayers which are OK?

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  15:19:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
To sum up my opinion, lifeloss, the Federal courts and the Supreme Court have consistently found that the Constitution builds that wall between church and state, and that wall's not some kind of semipermeable membrane that works just one way.

Thankfully, it not only protects religions form the establishment of a state religion, it also protects happily nonreligious folks like me from persecution and unwanted religious intrusion in public affairs from people like your own nutty, ghost-ridden self. If you like religion in government so much, look at the paradises of Iran and Somalia and see what it means in practice.

Unlike some atheists, I do not want to wipe out religion. I regard a neutral, secular government as a proper institution to assure that everyone has a choice of freedom of, or freedom from, religion. Many religious people are equally tolerant. Why aren't you?


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/30/2006 15:21:14
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  18:32:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss

quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Separation of church and state! Separation of church and state! Separation of church and state! I'll damned well scream it so long as it's at risk!

Were you stomping your feet with your fingers in your ears while you were screaming this? Recess is over, come back inside with the big kids.
Good point, coming from you, Headbanger.
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss

quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
quote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."
How in the world do you extract an idea like separation of church and state from an amendment that prohibits CONGRESS from making a LAW that ESTABLISHES a religion. Does that say anything about praying in school? Why can't a STATE funded school lead a prayer, or even allow a prayer for that matter, in school? They aren't congress are they? Is giving funding to a faith based drug rehab clinic ESTABLISHING a religion by the federal government? According to the constitution, if no law has been made then this amendment hasn't been broken. So, government can support religion and religion can support and influence government.
Not allowing the establishment of a state church is exactly the same as calling for separation of church and state.

quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner

quote:

Those who are now saying otherwise are either idiots, or are lying historical revisionists who want to establish a bloody-handed theocracy.



lifeloss wrote: "A bloody-handed theocracy, how dramatic! Lying historical revisionists! The funny thing is that you add soooooo many words and ideas to the constitution and then turn around and say whoever doesn't agree is an idiot. Typical."

No, I believe I called you an historical revisionist, a liar, and a bloody-handed theocrat. I concede you are not an idiot. Those are the kind of people you are trying to fool.

lifeloss admitted: "I concede that as a Christian I would not want my child to be subject to a pagan prayer."

There, in that one sentence, you have exposed the utterly hypocritical motivation of your argument. Maybe (probably) you don't see it that way, but everyone else sees that you want your religion "established" with extra rights you would deny to others. Precisely the kind of abuse the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent. End of argument.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/30/2006 18:34:48
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  20:43:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss



To Valiant Dancer:
quote:
130 years of case law says yes.

Since when is case law exempt from scrutiny. This figure is misleading at best. Just because liberal activist justices made a decision 130 years ago and certain individuals have upheld that decision over the years doesn't make it correct.


As those decisions are the basis of rule of law and have stood the test of time and challenge, it makes it correct in the interpretation of the Constitution. "Liberal Activist Judges" is such a giveaway. This term is used when the individaul does not care to research the subject and the evidence clearly does not support thier held beliefs. In the case of Minor v. Cincinatti Board of Education, institutionally led school prayer was deemed to be interfering with the parental right and duty to instruct the student in the ways of religion.

quote:

quote:
Schools may not have institutionally lead prayer per Abington v. Schempp (based on the earlier Minor v. Cincinatti Board of Education, 1872) Schools may not prohibit individual students from praying on their own time at school.

I know why they can't. I want to know how it contradicts the 1st amendment.


As established by case law, it is establishing a religion by making one religion preferred above others. This has been debated at length in the cases referenced and many others. That you decline to recognize one branch of the goverment because it does not uphold your views is logically invalid.

quote:

quote:
Please read the 14th Amendment of the Constitution

How does an amendment that was added to guarantee freed slaves the same rights as everyone else relevant here? Even if it is, it wasn't ratified until 1868. What impact does it have on the original intent of the 1st amendment which was ratified some 77 years earlier?


It is sad that you have failed to read the Amendment. The amendment requires equal protection under the law. Again, under existing case law, the prohibitions to Congress under the 1st amendment has been transferred down to the states. We are also talking about a living document open to change by the states and legislature when conditions which the founders did not or could not concieve happening occur and must be addressed in the supreme law of the land. The timing of the passage of amendments is immaterial. It exists and must be considered when analyzing the propriety of existing case law. Or are you also going to rail against women's sufferage?

quote:

quote:
It is following the 1st and 14th Amendments by someone acting as agent for the government. Valedectorians act as such when they speak at a school sanctioned event. As long as they are not in front of a microphone, they are free to express their religion

This is nonsense. The difference is amplification? That makes NO sense. By telling them not to talk about God is directly denying them their 1st amendment rights. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."


No, the difference is function that the individual plays. They may pray, but not on the school's dime. Speeches made by faculty and students are considered government sponsored speech. As such, they are acting as an agent of the school and by extension, the government.

quote:

quote:
But not enforced or lead by that government entity

Not allowing public prayer and forcing silence is directly sanctioning atheism.



I see, so you equate giving the religious special rights of a captive audience and preferred status as forcing atheism. Again, public prayer is not prohibited by individuals who are on their own time. The sanction only applies to people acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government. This merely places the question of religion firmly with the individual without interference from the government for good or ill.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.41 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000