|
|
I think that what people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion (and certainly not religious expression) out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal.
Hence we see government banning prayers for example at sporting events:
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100640&page=1#.UE0gp67kpaA
That is government sticking its fingers in religious expression.
Anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere they want. Limits on exrpession and speech should be reserved for when your speech directly harms someone else. A prayer is certainly not harmful to hear even if you aren't of that particular faith. You should not be allowed be forcefully baptize someone or make them pay tithes or forcefully convert. But Muslims, Christians, Jews should all be allowed to give a prayer wherever they want. Someone hearing a prayer is not a "forceful conversion" nor it is establishing a religion. It is allowing freedom of religious expression.
We have become so trigger happy with shutting out religious expression in public society that we forgot that the goal is not to ban religious expression but to keep the government from forcing people to be baptized or go to jail and also to keep goverment from having any control or churches.
|
On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. Hence we see government banning prayers for example at sporting events: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100640&page=1#.UE0gp67kpaAThat is government sticking its fingers in religious expression. Anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere they want. The should not be allowed be forcefully baptize someone or make them pay tithes or forcefully convert. But Muslims, Christians, Jews should all be allowed to give a prayer wherever they want. Someone hearing a prayer is not a "forceful conversion" nor it is establishing a religion. It is allowing freedom of religious expression. We have become so trigger happy with shutting out religious expression in public society that we forgot that the goal is not to ban religious expression but to keep the government from forcing people to be baptized or go to jail and also to keep goverment from having any control or churches.
That was a school-sanctioned prayer, not a spontaneous one. It was planned by the school, which is part of the government that we support through taxes. It's the same issue with "under God." I have no problem with someone adding those words to a pledge of allegiance, or with someone praying publicly. I have a problem when the government, a secular institution funded by my money, decides to incorporate religion into itself. I agree, hearing a prayer is fine and I think prayer should be protected under freedom of speech+ religion, and I have nothing wrong with religious expression, but it should be normal people doing these, not the government.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:
I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal.
... WHAT!?
Freedom of religion was to protect religion. Separation of church and state is to protect the public.
Thomas Jefferson:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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."
Jefferson believed that the Government's relationship with the Church should be indifferent, religion being neither persecuted nor given any special status.
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market."
|
On September 10 2012 08:18 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. Hence we see government banning prayers for example at sporting events: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100640&page=1#.UE0gp67kpaAThat is government sticking its fingers in religious expression. Anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere they want. The should not be allowed be forcefully baptize someone or make them pay tithes or forcefully convert. But Muslims, Christians, Jews should all be allowed to give a prayer wherever they want. Someone hearing a prayer is not a "forceful conversion" nor it is establishing a religion. It is allowing freedom of religious expression. We have become so trigger happy with shutting out religious expression in public society that we forgot that the goal is not to ban religious expression but to keep the government from forcing people to be baptized or go to jail and also to keep goverment from having any control or churches. That was a school-sanctioned prayer, not a spontaneous one. It was planned by the school, which is part of the government that we support through taxes. It's the same issue with "under God." I have no problem with someone adding those words to a pledge of allegiance, or with someone praying publicly. I have a problem when the government, a secular institution funded by my money, decides to incorporate religion into itself. I agree, hearing a prayer is fine and I think prayer should be protected under freedom of speech+ religion, and I have nothing wrong with religious expression, but it should be normal people doing these, not the government.
Does the act of hearing a prayer force a Jew to become a Christian?
|
On September 10 2012 08:20 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:18 Chocolate wrote:On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. Hence we see government banning prayers for example at sporting events: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100640&page=1#.UE0gp67kpaAThat is government sticking its fingers in religious expression. Anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere they want. The should not be allowed be forcefully baptize someone or make them pay tithes or forcefully convert. But Muslims, Christians, Jews should all be allowed to give a prayer wherever they want. Someone hearing a prayer is not a "forceful conversion" nor it is establishing a religion. It is allowing freedom of religious expression. We have become so trigger happy with shutting out religious expression in public society that we forgot that the goal is not to ban religious expression but to keep the government from forcing people to be baptized or go to jail and also to keep goverment from having any control or churches. That was a school-sanctioned prayer, not a spontaneous one. It was planned by the school, which is part of the government that we support through taxes. It's the same issue with "under God." I have no problem with someone adding those words to a pledge of allegiance, or with someone praying publicly. I have a problem when the government, a secular institution funded by my money, decides to incorporate religion into itself. I agree, hearing a prayer is fine and I think prayer should be protected under freedom of speech+ religion, and I have nothing wrong with religious expression, but it should be normal people doing these, not the government. Does the act of hearing a prayer force a Jew to become a Christian?
No, but that's not relevant to the issue. The issue is that the government should not, and constitutionally cannot, espouse and favor any religion. That's why that school's prayer was stopped, and that's why people have problems with the pledge.
|
On September 10 2012 08:20 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:18 Chocolate wrote:On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. Hence we see government banning prayers for example at sporting events: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100640&page=1#.UE0gp67kpaAThat is government sticking its fingers in religious expression. Anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere they want. The should not be allowed be forcefully baptize someone or make them pay tithes or forcefully convert. But Muslims, Christians, Jews should all be allowed to give a prayer wherever they want. Someone hearing a prayer is not a "forceful conversion" nor it is establishing a religion. It is allowing freedom of religious expression. We have become so trigger happy with shutting out religious expression in public society that we forgot that the goal is not to ban religious expression but to keep the government from forcing people to be baptized or go to jail and also to keep goverment from having any control or churches. That was a school-sanctioned prayer, not a spontaneous one. It was planned by the school, which is part of the government that we support through taxes. It's the same issue with "under God." I have no problem with someone adding those words to a pledge of allegiance, or with someone praying publicly. I have a problem when the government, a secular institution funded by my money, decides to incorporate religion into itself. I agree, hearing a prayer is fine and I think prayer should be protected under freedom of speech+ religion, and I have nothing wrong with religious expression, but it should be normal people doing these, not the government. Does the act of hearing a prayer force a Jew to become a Christian?
That is an utterly irrelevant question. Instead, we should be asking whether or not a child, with a fledgling sense of spirituality, is the victim of discrimination when forced to sit through a school-mandated prayer session. The answer is yes, unless said school takes the time to sponsor prayers in every representative faith. Oh wait, atheists have rights to. This should simply never happen in government-mandated activities.
|
United States41937 Posts
On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion (and certainly not religious expression) out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. Hence we see government banning prayers for example at sporting events: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100640&page=1#.UE0gp67kpaAThat is government sticking its fingers in religious expression. Anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere they want. Limits on exrpession and speech should be reserved for when your speech directly harms someone else. A prayer is certainly not harmful to hear even if you aren't of that particular faith. You should not be allowed be forcefully baptize someone or make them pay tithes or forcefully convert. But Muslims, Christians, Jews should all be allowed to give a prayer wherever they want. Someone hearing a prayer is not a "forceful conversion" nor it is establishing a religion. It is allowing freedom of religious expression. We have become so trigger happy with shutting out religious expression in public society that we forgot that the goal is not to ban religious expression but to keep the government from forcing people to be baptized or go to jail and also to keep goverment from having any control or churches.
I think part of that depends on the context. If I were a parent and raised my child as an atheist I'd be uncomfortable with ritualised prayers in his school, sports teams, scout camps etc. Fortunately we don't have anything like the extremities of religious display that you guys do but I have nothing but sympathy for atheists growing up in America and the struggles they have.
I'd rather it were kept in the church or at meetings for people who want to go for it than saturated across society.
|
On September 10 2012 08:19 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:
I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. ... WHAT!? Freedom of religion was to protect religion. Separation of church and state is to protect the public. Thomas Jefferson: Show nested quote +"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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."
Jefferson believed that the Government's relationship with the Church should be indifferent, religion being neither persecuted nor given any special status.
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market."
When they were talking about "establishment of religion" they meant it literally. They lived in a time when governments tended to force people to belong to certain religions. I think that Thomas Jefferson would be turning in his grave to find out that prayer is being banned in public places based on what he is talking about.
I am against the goverment setting a "state religion". But I am not against religious expression. If that school had a policy that said "Muslims are not allowed to give prayer before the football game" then that would be wrong. But if they had the policy that anyone of any faith could give that prayer, then there is no "establishment of religion"
|
On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion (and certainly not religious expression) out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. Hence we see government banning prayers for example at sporting events: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100640&page=1#.UE0gp67kpaAThat is government sticking its fingers in religious expression. Anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere they want. Limits on exrpession and speech should be reserved for when your speech directly harms someone else. A prayer is certainly not harmful to hear even if you aren't of that particular faith. You should not be allowed be forcefully baptize someone or make them pay tithes or forcefully convert. But Muslims, Christians, Jews should all be allowed to give a prayer wherever they want. Someone hearing a prayer is not a "forceful conversion" nor it is establishing a religion. It is allowing freedom of religious expression. We have become so trigger happy with shutting out religious expression in public society that we forgot that the goal is not to ban religious expression but to keep the government from forcing people to be baptized or go to jail and also to keep goverment from having any control or churches.
Acutally as historian, I must say you are wrong on your key point.
The seperation of church and state was implemented after the religious strife which plagued Europe until the 19th century (and happened again here and there later, including WW2). The first goverment which tried to form a secular state in the western world was France after the French Revolution.
Personally the seperation is already quite thin within many modern states, but what annoys me the most, is that it is usually used as a trumped up reason for Chrisitian Puritans to say, the state should keep out of THEIR religion. The question of what people consider harmfull is always subjective, but I think we can simply agree that religion in general should stay out of goverment sponsored areas, which includes schools. Meaning anything related to religion needs to be non-mandatory (and yes, it's quite ironic if an Austrian says something like this, because this is the one specific area where my own goverment behaves like idiots...).
|
On September 10 2012 08:24 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:19 Souma wrote:On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:
I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. ... WHAT!? Freedom of religion was to protect religion. Separation of church and state is to protect the public. Thomas Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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."
Jefferson believed that the Government's relationship with the Church should be indifferent, religion being neither persecuted nor given any special status.
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market." When they were talking about "establishment of religion" they meant it literally. They lived in a time when governments tended to force people to belong to certain religions. I think that Thomas Jefferson would be turning in his grave to find out that prayer is being banned in public places based on what he is talking about. I am against the goverment setting a "state religion". But I am not against religious expression. If that school had a policy that said "Muslims are not allowed to give prayer before the football game" then that would be wrong. But if they had the policy that anyone of any faith could give that prayer, then there is no "establishment of religion"
That is false. Prayer is not banned in public places. I could go to Times Square or a park right now and have a group prayer session and nobody would care. The mingling of government and religion is prohibited. Also, arguing what they meant is slightly ridiculous: is there any way that we can know for certain? Of course not, they're dead. What matters is the current law (what it actually says) not the sentiment that may or may not be true behind it. I'm beginning to think you didn't read the article that you posted.
|
Savio's exactly right, and the liberal interpretation of the Establishment Clause is exactly why the democrats are perceived as an anti-religious party. What was meant to be something to promote religious tolerance has now been twisted into a tool to eliminate all religion in the public sphere.
|
On September 10 2012 08:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:20 Savio wrote:On September 10 2012 08:18 Chocolate wrote:On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. Hence we see government banning prayers for example at sporting events: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100640&page=1#.UE0gp67kpaAThat is government sticking its fingers in religious expression. Anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere they want. The should not be allowed be forcefully baptize someone or make them pay tithes or forcefully convert. But Muslims, Christians, Jews should all be allowed to give a prayer wherever they want. Someone hearing a prayer is not a "forceful conversion" nor it is establishing a religion. It is allowing freedom of religious expression. We have become so trigger happy with shutting out religious expression in public society that we forgot that the goal is not to ban religious expression but to keep the government from forcing people to be baptized or go to jail and also to keep goverment from having any control or churches. That was a school-sanctioned prayer, not a spontaneous one. It was planned by the school, which is part of the government that we support through taxes. It's the same issue with "under God." I have no problem with someone adding those words to a pledge of allegiance, or with someone praying publicly. I have a problem when the government, a secular institution funded by my money, decides to incorporate religion into itself. I agree, hearing a prayer is fine and I think prayer should be protected under freedom of speech+ religion, and I have nothing wrong with religious expression, but it should be normal people doing these, not the government. Does the act of hearing a prayer force a Jew to become a Christian? That is an utterly irrelevant question. Instead, we should be asking whether or not a child, with a fledgling sense of spirituality, is the victim of discrimination when forced to sit through a school-mandated prayer session. The answer is yes, unless said school takes the time to sponsor prayers in every representative faith. Oh wait, atheists have rights to. This should simply never happen in government-mandated activities.
So because a school is filled with christians, jews and atheist children we should only default to the atheist position? Again, schools are places where kids hear all kinds of ideas. We even teach them how to have sex for goodness sake. I don't think hearing a prayer will damage anyone. If nothing else it just broadens their exposure to different ideas.
|
On September 10 2012 08:25 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion (and certainly not religious expression) out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. Hence we see government banning prayers for example at sporting events: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100640&page=1#.UE0gp67kpaAThat is government sticking its fingers in religious expression. Anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere they want. Limits on exrpession and speech should be reserved for when your speech directly harms someone else. A prayer is certainly not harmful to hear even if you aren't of that particular faith. You should not be allowed be forcefully baptize someone or make them pay tithes or forcefully convert. But Muslims, Christians, Jews should all be allowed to give a prayer wherever they want. Someone hearing a prayer is not a "forceful conversion" nor it is establishing a religion. It is allowing freedom of religious expression. We have become so trigger happy with shutting out religious expression in public society that we forgot that the goal is not to ban religious expression but to keep the government from forcing people to be baptized or go to jail and also to keep goverment from having any control or churches. Acutally as historian, I must say you are wrong on your key point. The seperation of church and state was implemented after the religious strife which plagued Europe until the 19th century (and happened again here and there later, including WW2). The first goverment which tried to form a secular state in the western world was France after the French Revolution. Personally the seperation is already quite thin within many modern states, but what annoys me the most, is that it is usually used as a trumped up reason for Chrisitian Puritans to say, the state should keep out of THEIR religion. The question of what people consider harmfull is always subjective, but I think we can simply agree that religion in general should stay out of goverment sponsored areas, which includes schools. Meaning anything related to religion needs to be non-mandatory (and yes, it's quite ironic if an Austrian says something like this, because this is the one specific area where my own goverment behaves like idiots...).
No, but I do think we can all agree that government should not pass a law requiring the population to all convert to 1 particular faith. And I think that that is what the founders are protecting us from.
|
United States41937 Posts
On September 10 2012 08:24 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:19 Souma wrote:On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:
I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. ... WHAT!? Freedom of religion was to protect religion. Separation of church and state is to protect the public. Thomas Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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."
Jefferson believed that the Government's relationship with the Church should be indifferent, religion being neither persecuted nor given any special status.
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market." When they were talking about "establishment of religion" they meant it literally. They lived in a time when governments tended to force people to belong to certain religions. I think that Thomas Jefferson would be turning in his grave to find out that prayer is being banned in public places based on what he is talking about. I am against the goverment setting a "state religion". But I am not against religious expression. If that school had a policy that said "Muslims are not allowed to give prayer before the football game" then that would be wrong. But if they had the policy that anyone of any faith could give that prayer, then there is no "establishment of religion"
You're arguing on technicalities such as "anyone could give the prayer" and ignoring the reality of the situation which is the state participation in the social saturation of a religion and its ideology that the state has no business peddling. It's not fair on the kids and it's certainly not a justifiable use of taxpayer money for the parents seeking to protect their children from religion.
|
On September 10 2012 08:27 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:23 farvacola wrote:On September 10 2012 08:20 Savio wrote:On September 10 2012 08:18 Chocolate wrote:On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. Hence we see government banning prayers for example at sporting events: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100640&page=1#.UE0gp67kpaAThat is government sticking its fingers in religious expression. Anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere they want. The should not be allowed be forcefully baptize someone or make them pay tithes or forcefully convert. But Muslims, Christians, Jews should all be allowed to give a prayer wherever they want. Someone hearing a prayer is not a "forceful conversion" nor it is establishing a religion. It is allowing freedom of religious expression. We have become so trigger happy with shutting out religious expression in public society that we forgot that the goal is not to ban religious expression but to keep the government from forcing people to be baptized or go to jail and also to keep goverment from having any control or churches. That was a school-sanctioned prayer, not a spontaneous one. It was planned by the school, which is part of the government that we support through taxes. It's the same issue with "under God." I have no problem with someone adding those words to a pledge of allegiance, or with someone praying publicly. I have a problem when the government, a secular institution funded by my money, decides to incorporate religion into itself. I agree, hearing a prayer is fine and I think prayer should be protected under freedom of speech+ religion, and I have nothing wrong with religious expression, but it should be normal people doing these, not the government. Does the act of hearing a prayer force a Jew to become a Christian? That is an utterly irrelevant question. Instead, we should be asking whether or not a child, with a fledgling sense of spirituality, is the victim of discrimination when forced to sit through a school-mandated prayer session. The answer is yes, unless said school takes the time to sponsor prayers in every representative faith. Oh wait, atheists have rights to. This should simply never happen in government-mandated activities. So because a school is filled with christians, jews and atheist children we should only default to the atheist position? Again, schools are places where kids hear all kinds of ideas. We even teach them how to have sex for goodness sake. I don't think hearing a prayer will damage anyone. If nothing else it just broadens their exposure to different ideas.
It doesn't matter what you think, many Atheists, Jews and Muslims have expressed feelings of discrimination when forced to sit through a school-LED Christian religious expression. And not praying in school is not a default atheist position, it is not as though the school is leading an atheist prayer to rationality.
|
United States41937 Posts
On September 10 2012 08:27 xDaunt wrote:
Savio's exactly right, and the liberal interpretation of the Establishment Clause is exactly why the democrats are perceived as an anti-religious party. What was meant to be something to promote religious tolerance has now been twisted into a tool to eliminate all religion in the public sphere.
The public sphere is the state sphere and the state has no religion. Religion belongs solely in the private sphere, to individuals and organisations, and it should stay there. You don't have to hate Christians to want them to keep it in churches and out of schools.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 10 2012 08:24 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:19 Souma wrote:On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:
I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. ... WHAT!? Freedom of religion was to protect religion. Separation of church and state is to protect the public. Thomas Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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."
Jefferson believed that the Government's relationship with the Church should be indifferent, religion being neither persecuted nor given any special status.
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market." When they were talking about "establishment of religion" they meant it literally. They lived in a time when governments tended to force people to belong to certain religions. I think that Thomas Jefferson would be turning in his grave to find out that prayer is being banned in public places based on what he is talking about. I am against the goverment setting a "state religion". But I am not against religious expression. If that school had a policy that said "Muslims are not allowed to give prayer before the football game" then that would be wrong. But if they had the policy that anyone of any faith could give that prayer, then there is no "establishment of religion"
facepalm.
Though he did so as Governor of Virginia, during his Presidency Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and thanksgiving.
"But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer."
aka state-sanctioned prayers is a no-no.
If there's one thing you need to know about Thomas Jefferson, it's that he was explicitly adamant about keeping religion out of government, to the point where the critics of his time were calling HIM an atheist even though he was a believer himself.
|
On September 10 2012 08:27 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:24 Savio wrote:On September 10 2012 08:19 Souma wrote:On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:
I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. ... WHAT!? Freedom of religion was to protect religion. Separation of church and state is to protect the public. Thomas Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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."
Jefferson believed that the Government's relationship with the Church should be indifferent, religion being neither persecuted nor given any special status.
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market." When they were talking about "establishment of religion" they meant it literally. They lived in a time when governments tended to force people to belong to certain religions. I think that Thomas Jefferson would be turning in his grave to find out that prayer is being banned in public places based on what he is talking about. I am against the goverment setting a "state religion". But I am not against religious expression. If that school had a policy that said "Muslims are not allowed to give prayer before the football game" then that would be wrong. But if they had the policy that anyone of any faith could give that prayer, then there is no "establishment of religion" That is false. Prayer is not banned in public places. I could go to Times Square or a park right now and have a group prayer session and nobody would care. The mingling of government and religion is prohibited. Also, arguing what they meant is slightly ridiculous: is there any way that we can know for certain? Of course not, they're dead. What matters is the current law (what it actually says) not the sentiment that may or may not be true behind it. I'm beginning to think you didn't read the article that you posted.
1 tool you can use to try to determine the founders thoughts is to observe their behavior? Did the founders start their conventions and government session with prayer? Did the founders make "In God we Trust" our national motto (and did it without forcing people to convert TOO!) My understanding is that the founders favored public displays of religiosity even in places funded through taxes. But they were adamantly against passing a law setting up a designated "state religion" I am also against that.
I think that we have gone way to far as a society. Such that even the mention of "endowed by God with rights" gets booed at the convention of a major political party.
|
On September 10 2012 08:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:27 xDaunt wrote:
Savio's exactly right, and the liberal interpretation of the Establishment Clause is exactly why the democrats are perceived as an anti-religious party. What was meant to be something to promote religious tolerance has now been twisted into a tool to eliminate all religion in the public sphere. The public sphere is the state sphere and the state has no religion. Religion belongs solely in the private sphere, to individuals and organisations, and it should stay there. You don't have to hate Christians to want them to keep it in churches and out of schools.
No, you don't have to hate religion to do it, but I'm fairly convinced that the organizations pushing things like eliminating prayers at high school football games or preventing Christmas displays at public properties do hate religion.
|
On September 10 2012 08:35 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:27 Chocolate wrote:On September 10 2012 08:24 Savio wrote:On September 10 2012 08:19 Souma wrote:On September 10 2012 08:09 Savio wrote:
I think that was people often don't realize when they are talking about separation of church and state is that the main purpose of it was probably to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government. It was to protect religion. But now, we have people saying that public displays of religiosity should be illegal. ... WHAT!? Freedom of religion was to protect religion. Separation of church and state is to protect the public. Thomas Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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."
Jefferson believed that the Government's relationship with the Church should be indifferent, religion being neither persecuted nor given any special status.
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market." When they were talking about "establishment of religion" they meant it literally. They lived in a time when governments tended to force people to belong to certain religions. I think that Thomas Jefferson would be turning in his grave to find out that prayer is being banned in public places based on what he is talking about. I am against the goverment setting a "state religion". But I am not against religious expression. If that school had a policy that said "Muslims are not allowed to give prayer before the football game" then that would be wrong. But if they had the policy that anyone of any faith could give that prayer, then there is no "establishment of religion" That is false. Prayer is not banned in public places. I could go to Times Square or a park right now and have a group prayer session and nobody would care. The mingling of government and religion is prohibited. Also, arguing what they meant is slightly ridiculous: is there any way that we can know for certain? Of course not, they're dead. What matters is the current law (what it actually says) not the sentiment that may or may not be true behind it. I'm beginning to think you didn't read the article that you posted. I tool you can use to try to determine the founders thoughts is to observe their behavior? Did the founders start their conventions and government session with prayer? Did the founders make "In God we Trust" our national motto (and did it without forcing people to convert TOO!) My understanding is that the founders favored public displays of religiosity even in places funded through taxes. But they were adamantly against passing a law setting up a designated "state religion" I am also against that. I think that we have gone way to far as a society. Such that even the mention of "endowed by God with rights" gets booed at the convention of a major political party.
Well at least now you've made it clear that you argue for prayer in public places not because you are actually concerned with the rights of individuals, but rather because it simply upsets you that people would boo your God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
