It's not just your guns and your religion you bitterly cling to

[Deaf Smith]

The "wall" is there to protect the people in their freedom to believe, not to outlaw public displays of religiosity.

Pax,

Chris

Exactly!!!! There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting displays of any religion in a government place (we swear on the Bible, have 'In God We Trust' on denominations, Even the 'Star Spangled Banner', our anthem, has God mentioned!!!!

But we have no state religion, as Britain did, nor push any one. And that is what our founding fathers wanted to stop.

Deaf

 

[Ken Morgan]

We do have a 'freedom OF religion'. Notice the word 'OF', not 'FROM' religion. We still are pretty much a Christian nation.

Actually freedom of religion does also mean freedom from religion. All it does it give you the choice to believe as you will, be it any of a multitude of religions or no religion at all.

By a Christian nation, I take it you mean that most people identify with or claim to be Christians?

 

[Ken Morgan]

Exactly!!!! There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting displays of any religion in a government place (we swear on the Bible, have 'In God We Trust' on denominations, Even the 'Star Spangled Banner', our anthem, has God mentioned!!!!

But we have no state religion, as Britain did, nor push any one. And that is what our founding fathers wanted to stop.

Deaf

Yes there is nothing in your constitution prohibiting religious displays on government buildings, but there is also nothing that approves of such a thing. There is nothing to say you can’t paint yourself blue and call yourself a Smurf either.
You can swear on a bible or take an oath. In god we trust came about in 1956.
While the UK may have a State religion, I can’t think of a recent occurrence of people being forced to follow it.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Actually freedom of religion does also mean freedom from religion. All it does it give you the choice to believe as you will, be it any of a multitude of religions or no religion at all.

Since this is a discussion revolving around the U.S. you should note that in such a context this is not correct. The framers of the Constitution were dealing with the official religion of England (the Anglican church) and wanted to avoid having to deal with that whole set of problems. What the First Amendment protected was a person's freedom of conscience. The people are free to belong to whatever Church they wish.

It would only be proper to refer to freedom of religion in the sense you use it secondarily. In fact, in an American context I would argue that such a notion is actually alien to the Constitution since it was not really what the founders were addressing. You can believ in nothing if you want but that's not exactly what the First Amendment was dealing with.

Your statement sounds more in line with the idea of France's "Laitie" than it does with what the U.S. Constitution adresses.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Yes there is nothing in your constitution prohibiting religious displays on government buildings, but there is also nothing that approves of such a thing. There is nothing to say you can’t paint yourself blue and call yourself a Smurf either.

This is true and in the U.S. you don't need the government's permission to paint yourself like a smurf. In fact, our Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal gov't in order to limit said powers, not in order to grant the people rights.

You can swear on a bible or take an oath. In god we trust came about in 1956.

While the UK may have a State religion, I can’t think of a recent occurrence of people being forced to follow it.

Still can't be a Catholic and be in line for ther throne, IIRC. But hey that's only a little bigotry so it's OK! I know there was talk of finally overturning that law but haven't heard anything recently. I hope the English people finally realize how bigoted it is.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Carol]

However, Ken's remarks are in line with the Supreme Court's guidelines that were set forward in Everson vs. Board of Education of Ewing Township. 330 US 1 (1947).

Below text from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education


The 5-4 decision was handed down on February 10, 1947. The Court, through Justice Hugo Black, ruled that the state bill was constitutionally permissible. Perhaps as important as the actual outcome, though, was the position that the entire Court adopted on the Establishment Clause. It reflected a broad interpretation of the Clause that was to guide the Court's decisions for decades to come. Black's language was sweeping:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this:

1. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
2. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.
3. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
4. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
5. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
6. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

 

[Carol]

Yes there is nothing in your constitution prohibiting religious displays on government buildings, but there is also nothing that approves of such a thing.

The issue is more of a pragmatic matter. In the U.S., it is permissible for employees, of any employer (public or private) to keep small religious in their workspace if it permits employees in general to have small personal belongings. In other words, if it is OK for an employee to have a photo of their family in their workspace, then it is OK for an employee to have a mandala or a set of rosary beads in their workspace.

With regards to openly public displays, the issue gets a bit more complicated. If government establishment displays religious regalia for one religion's holidays, but not the others...even when a display to honor other faiths is requested...then that is showing favoritism to one religion over another.

One example is Lexington's Battle Green. The town voted to remove a creche after receiving a flood of other requests to display religious displays from other religions. The law has been changed to state that religious displays on Battle Green must be live-action. The rulinig was upheld by Federal Court. (Boston Globe, Dec. 7 & 19, 2000)

 

[Sukerkin]

[/size][/font]

I know there was talk of finally overturning that law but haven't heard anything recently. I hope the English people finally realize how bigoted it is.

Never! Keep those papist traitors, with their foreign-power string-pullers, out of the power structure! They should be thankful we don't set fire to them any more (tho' that was mainly in vengeance at their burning Protestants) .

There are very good reasons in our history why it is that the Monarch cannot be a papist or marry one either. Just as there are good reasons why we have the Crown as head of the church and why the envoy to the Vatican is not supposed to be a Catholic. Once religion no longer has any political power then it will be time to remove that legislation from our statute books. Until then, if we have to have any organised religions at all, Church of England will do fine {Cake or death? :lol:}.

 

[DocWard]

Exactly!!!! There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting displays of any religion in a government place (we swear on the Bible, have 'In God We Trust' on denominations, Even the 'Star Spangled Banner', our anthem, has God mentioned!!!!

Well.... The poem "The Star Spangled Banner" does mentions "God" in the fourth stanza. It isn't mentioned in the first, that which is traditionally performed as the National Anthem.

Oh say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

 

[chrispillertkd]

There are very good reasons in our history why it is that the Monarch cannot be a papist or marry one either. Just as there are good reasons why we have the Crown as head of the church and why the envoy to the Vatican is not supposed to be a Catholic. Once religion no longer has any political power then it will be time to remove that legislation from our statute books. Until then, if we have to have any organised religions at all, Church of England will do fine {Cake or death? :lol:}.

Like I said, it's OK because it's only a little bigotry. Good show, old chap. Religion will always have political power because it will always influence people's lives. The desire to do away with that is the desire to do away with religion.

The fact that the Crown is the head of the Anglican church also demonstrates the double standard your comfortable with. It's no big deal, really. All cultures have prejudices they excuse for one reason or another.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Ken Morgan]

Like I said, it's OK because it's only a little bigotry. Good show, old chap. Religion will always have political power because it will always influence people's lives. The desire to do away with that is the desire to do away with religion.

The fact that the Crown is the head of the Anglican church also demonstrates the double standard your comfortable with. It's no big deal, really. All cultures have prejudices they excuse for one reason or another.

Pax,

Chris

Well the real power lies with the PM anyway, and they can be RC, so what does it matter? Its like asking if the Pope could be Jewish.

The sooner religion is stripped of any and all political power the better. Corporations influence peoples lives as much if not more so then religion, and yet they have less political power. The day religious dogma disappears from our lives the better.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Yes there is nothing in your constitution prohibiting religious displays on government buildings, but there is also nothing that approves of such a thing. There is nothing to say you can’t paint yourself blue and call yourself a Smurf either.
You can swear on a bible or take an oath. In god we trust came about in 1956.
While the UK may have a State religion, I can’t think of a recent occurrence of people being forced to follow it.

Recent? True, not recently, but it's amazing how the Church of England is so imbedded into the legal system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

"Of the forty-four diocesan archbishops and bishops in the Church of England, only twenty-six are permitted to sit in the House of Lords. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York automatically have seats, as do the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The remaining twenty-one seats are filled in order of seniority by consecration. It may take a diocesan bishop a number of years to reach the House of Lords, at which point he becomes a Lord Spiritual. The Bishop of Sodor and Man and the Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe are not eligible to sit in the House of Lords as their Dioceses lie outside of the United Kingdom."

Deaf

 

[chrispillertkd]

Well the real power lies with the PM anyway, and they can be RC, so what does it matter? Its like asking if the Pope could be Jewish.

No, it's not like that at all. It's like asking if the President could be a Jew.

The sooner religion is stripped of any and all political power the better. Corporations influence peoples lives as much if not more so then religion, and yet they have less political power. The day religious dogma disappears from our lives the better.

Yes, stripping religion of all its political power worked wonders in places like the USSR, DPRK, Cuba, etc.

It's debateable whether or not corporations have les political power than religions but regardless, so what? At least the U.S. recognizes that people have the right, granted by our creator, to be free in their religious belief and these beliefs are not a priori excluded from debate in the public square.

Granted some people on the left treat any hint of public religion as nothing short of the dreaded coming of "Theocracy" but such reactions really only demonstrate that they don't know what the term theocracy means and that they are haunted by a very peculiar bogey man.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chaos1551]

As long as people are religious and people run governments, there will be no true separation of church and state. Only when either religion is dead or government is dead will they be separated. Period.