|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
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.
This is where your argument strays. The advocate of "separation of church and state" in American history was Thomas Jefferson. Many of the other founders had their own beliefs. So if you're going to argue that "separation of church and state" was to protect religion (which it wasn't, freedom of religion was), you have to understand by whom it was introduced and why.
|
On September 10 2012 08:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:32 KwarK wrote: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 football games or preventing Christmas displays at public properties do hate religion.
But is that relevant? Does a religion or lack thereof affect the validity of an argument?
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.
Read the TJ quote. Also, the government can't control what people say at conventions, and I assume the delegates wanted to keep God and religious populism out of the platform.
|
United States43505 Posts
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.
I think a lot of Americans are so used to being part of a religious majority they simply don't understand what the minority are talking about. A candidate for a major public office stating that in his opinion rights come from God is actually quite worrying to me because that's a pretty unstable foundation from my perspective. They should come from something common and intrinsic to the whole society, such as a respect for fellow man.
|
On September 10 2012 08:33 Souma 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" facepalm. Show nested quote +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.
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 9, 2012, as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. I ask that the people of the United States honor and remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and their loved ones through prayer, contemplation, memorial services, the visiting of memorials, the ringing of bells, evening candlelight remembrance vigils, and other appropriate ceremonies and activities. I invite people around the world to participate in this commemoration."
Was Obama wrong in doing this? No because prayer does NOT equal the establishment of a religion and it does not force anyone to join any particular church.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/07/presidential-proclamation-national-days-prayer-and-remembrance-2012
Also, + Show Spoiler +"On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace,” which petitioned:
“Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.
Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.
Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.
In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 10 2012 08:41 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:33 Souma 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" 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. "NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 9, 2012, as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. I ask that the people of the United States honor and remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and their loved ones through prayer, contemplation, memorial services, the visiting of memorials, the ringing of bells, evening candlelight remembrance vigils, and other appropriate ceremonies and activities. I invite people around the world to participate in this commemoration." Was Obama wrong in doing this? No because prayer does NOT equal the establishment of a religion and it does not force anyone to join any particular church.
You're mistaking freedom of religion for "separation of church and state!" They're TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. And if you're asking me if the President should be allowed to proclaim official days for "prayer" it would depend what kind of prayer he's talking about, because everyone can "pray," but not everyone can pray to a Christian god. Even atheists can pray for the dead - it does not mean they're praying to a God though.
|
On September 10 2012 08:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:35 Savio wrote: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. I think a lot of Americans are so used to being part of a religious majority they simply don't understand what the minority are talking about. A candidate for a major public office stating that in his opinion rights come from God is actually quite worrying to me because that's a pretty unstable foundation from my perspective. They should come from something common and intrinsic to the whole society, such as a respect for fellow man.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
--Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781, p. 237.
I think you are overly worried. It would be wrong for us to pass a law forcing the population to convert to 1 particular church. It is not bad for our state leaders to think that rights come from God. I would hope that they feel that way.
|
On September 10 2012 08:47 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:41 Savio wrote:On September 10 2012 08:33 Souma 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" 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. "NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 9, 2012, as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. I ask that the people of the United States honor and remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and their loved ones through prayer, contemplation, memorial services, the visiting of memorials, the ringing of bells, evening candlelight remembrance vigils, and other appropriate ceremonies and activities. I invite people around the world to participate in this commemoration." Was Obama wrong in doing this? No because prayer does NOT equal the establishment of a religion and it does not force anyone to join any particular church. You're mistaking freedom of religion for "separation of church and state!" They're TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. And if you're asking me if the President should be allowed to proclaim official days for "prayer" it would depend what kind of prayer he's talking about, because everyone can "pray," but not everyone can pray for a Christian god. Even atheists can pray for the dead - it does not mean they're praying to a God though.
The Establishment clause is the only thing that matters because "separation of church and state" is not found in the constitution and was just part of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a pastor of a minority congregation assuring him that they would not pick a state religion.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 10 2012 08:48 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:39 KwarK wrote:On September 10 2012 08:35 Savio wrote: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. I think a lot of Americans are so used to being part of a religious majority they simply don't understand what the minority are talking about. A candidate for a major public office stating that in his opinion rights come from God is actually quite worrying to me because that's a pretty unstable foundation from my perspective. They should come from something common and intrinsic to the whole society, such as a respect for fellow man. "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781, p. 237. I think you are overly worried. It would be wrong for us to pass a law forcing the population to convert to 1 particular church. It is not bad for our state leaders to think that rights come from God. I would hope that they feel that way.
This is the irony of it all. Jefferson was quite the believer of religion, yet because he adamantly tried to keep religion from influencing the public sphere he caught a lot of flak with his contemporaries. Does this remind you of anyone in particular?
|
Gotta love Biden.
Takes some brass ones to hit on a bikers old lady.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/guLPa.jpg)
|
United States43505 Posts
On September 10 2012 08:48 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:39 KwarK wrote:On September 10 2012 08:35 Savio wrote: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. I think a lot of Americans are so used to being part of a religious majority they simply don't understand what the minority are talking about. A candidate for a major public office stating that in his opinion rights come from God is actually quite worrying to me because that's a pretty unstable foundation from my perspective. They should come from something common and intrinsic to the whole society, such as a respect for fellow man. "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781, p. 237. I think you are overly worried. It would be wrong for us to pass a law forcing the population to convert to 1 particular church. It is not bad for our state leaders to think that rights come from God. I would hope that they feel that way.
If they said rights came from Santa would you feel the same way? Or would you want something more concrete?
The problem basically comes down to the same misunderstanding Christians have regarding the ontological argument. Christian practice seems perfectly rational to Christians because they believe in it but if you don't believe in it then it's suddenly quite worrying. I would much rather the rights of man in a society be something the society agreed upon based around the type of society they were trying to build than coming from the interpretation of Thor's will. Having never met Thor it all seems shaky whereas I like to know where I stand.
Remember I'm coming from a country where the majority are not religious but ten years ago a closet religious zealot got into power and invaded Iraq against the stated will of the British people. It's a genuine concern when you can have the largest protests in British history on the streets and a huge backbench rebellion in Parliament but the Prime Minister prays on it and decides to go ahead anyway because his invisible friend gave him the all clear.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 10 2012 08:50 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:47 Souma wrote:On September 10 2012 08:41 Savio wrote:On September 10 2012 08:33 Souma 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" 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. "NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 9, 2012, as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. I ask that the people of the United States honor and remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and their loved ones through prayer, contemplation, memorial services, the visiting of memorials, the ringing of bells, evening candlelight remembrance vigils, and other appropriate ceremonies and activities. I invite people around the world to participate in this commemoration." Was Obama wrong in doing this? No because prayer does NOT equal the establishment of a religion and it does not force anyone to join any particular church. You're mistaking freedom of religion for "separation of church and state!" They're TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. And if you're asking me if the President should be allowed to proclaim official days for "prayer" it would depend what kind of prayer he's talking about, because everyone can "pray," but not everyone can pray for a Christian god. Even atheists can pray for the dead - it does not mean they're praying to a God though. The Establishment clause is the only thing that matters because "separation of church and state" is not found in the constitution and was just part of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a pastor of a minority congregation assuring him that they would not pick a state religion.
"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another."
Now, if you're telling me that you're interpreting the Establishment Cause in such a way that allows the government to sponsor Christian prayers in the public sphere, I think that is our problem.
In any case, the original argument was "separation of church and state" was meant to protect religion, which you have been corrected. I think my job here is done.
|
On September 10 2012 09:02 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 08:50 Savio wrote:On September 10 2012 08:47 Souma wrote:On September 10 2012 08:41 Savio wrote:On September 10 2012 08:33 Souma 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" 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. "NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 9, 2012, as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. I ask that the people of the United States honor and remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and their loved ones through prayer, contemplation, memorial services, the visiting of memorials, the ringing of bells, evening candlelight remembrance vigils, and other appropriate ceremonies and activities. I invite people around the world to participate in this commemoration." Was Obama wrong in doing this? No because prayer does NOT equal the establishment of a religion and it does not force anyone to join any particular church. You're mistaking freedom of religion for "separation of church and state!" They're TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. And if you're asking me if the President should be allowed to proclaim official days for "prayer" it would depend what kind of prayer he's talking about, because everyone can "pray," but not everyone can pray for a Christian god. Even atheists can pray for the dead - it does not mean they're praying to a God though. The Establishment clause is the only thing that matters because "separation of church and state" is not found in the constitution and was just part of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a pastor of a minority congregation assuring him that they would not pick a state religion. "The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another." Now, if you're telling me that you're interpreting the Establishment Cause in such a way that allows the government to sponsor Christian prayers in the public sphere, I think that is our problem. In any case, the original argument was "separation of church and state" was meant to protect religion, which you have been corrected. I think my job here is done.
Except "separation of church and state" doesn't exist. The establishment cause exists. "Separation of church and state" is merely the misinterpreted personal communication of 1 person to another. It was never voted on or part of our constitution.
Now, if you're telling me that you're interpreting the Establishment Cause in such a way that allows the government to sponsor Christian prayers in the public sphere, I think that is our problem.
It does allow Christian prayers just as it allows Muslim prayers, Jewish prayers, etc. What would be illegal would also be to mandate that ONLY Christian prayers can be offered. That would be favoritism. As would giving tax benefits to some churches but not to others. But allowing prayer at a community high school football game does not.
|
Also interesting:
"The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."
source
Seems like a lot of people here tend to talk about religious expression like it is something dirty and needed to be kept "in their own house" or hidden indoors. You have to be careful not to unduly promote non-religion in the public sphere over religion as well. At least according to Cornell Law School. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the issue. We as a society have taken "The Establishment of a Religion" to far and are now banning public displays of religiosity if they use tax funded equipment. I think that that is wrong and also not what the founders intended. I remain adamantly opposed to a law setting a "state religion" or forcing people to convert to specific churches. But I am NOT against public displays of religiosity.
gonna go play a video game now. Cheers.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 10 2012 09:11 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 09:02 Souma wrote:On September 10 2012 08:50 Savio wrote:On September 10 2012 08:47 Souma wrote:On September 10 2012 08:41 Savio wrote:On September 10 2012 08:33 Souma 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" 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. "NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 9, 2012, as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. I ask that the people of the United States honor and remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and their loved ones through prayer, contemplation, memorial services, the visiting of memorials, the ringing of bells, evening candlelight remembrance vigils, and other appropriate ceremonies and activities. I invite people around the world to participate in this commemoration." Was Obama wrong in doing this? No because prayer does NOT equal the establishment of a religion and it does not force anyone to join any particular church. You're mistaking freedom of religion for "separation of church and state!" They're TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. And if you're asking me if the President should be allowed to proclaim official days for "prayer" it would depend what kind of prayer he's talking about, because everyone can "pray," but not everyone can pray for a Christian god. Even atheists can pray for the dead - it does not mean they're praying to a God though. The Establishment clause is the only thing that matters because "separation of church and state" is not found in the constitution and was just part of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a pastor of a minority congregation assuring him that they would not pick a state religion. "The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another." Now, if you're telling me that you're interpreting the Establishment Cause in such a way that allows the government to sponsor Christian prayers in the public sphere, I think that is our problem. In any case, the original argument was "separation of church and state" was meant to protect religion, which you have been corrected. I think my job here is done. Except "separation of church and state" doesn't exist. The establishment cause exists. "Separation of church and state" is merely the misinterpreted personal communication of 1 person to another. It was never voted on or part of our constitution.
This was your original argument:
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.
IF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE DOESN'T EXIST DON'T TRY TO USE IT AS A REASON THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROTECT RELIGION.
Show nested quote +Now, if you're telling me that you're interpreting the Establishment Cause in such a way that allows the government to sponsor Christian prayers in the public sphere, I think that is our problem. It does allow Christian prayers just as it allows Muslim prayers, Jewish prayers, etc. What would be illegal would also be to mandate that ONLY Christian prayers can be offered. That would be favoritism. As would giving tax benefits to some churches but not to others. But allowing prayer at a community high school football game does not.
You're right, it allows people to pray in public - what it doesn't allow is for a public school to say, "We are going to pray to this specific God today." That would be favoritism. Favoritism is a no no.
|
Savio can you imagine if a Muslim led a mostly Christian High School in the deep south in a Muslim prayer. What do you think some of the parents would do in response to this? What kind of bullying or what not would the student receive? Basically I don't think it's as equal as you say it is, and would lead to the school banning prayer probably. What if it was some Haitian Vodou dance/prayer/ritual? I'm sure people would be upset, but really it's just this student's religion. What if it was something really out there like a prayer to Aphrodite for great sex?
If a student wants to lead a prayer fine by me, but as soon as the school is involved in anyway it's not ok, and I'm sure once different parents voice their opinions the majority will win out, basically favoring the dominant religion.
There are places like Catholic school etc where you are free too mix religion in as much as you want if you want your kid to grow up in that environment that is an option for you.
This isn't really a government issue(since the government should have basically no interaction with religion), more of a social issue though. Another example of religion leading to intolerance.
|
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.
Listen, if democrats are the anti-religious party which has seemingly been showing better presidents at almost every turn from 1950's on let us take that as an example of how religion slows progress. : D
Best way to note the differences came from Clinton's speech... I swear I've never heard a speech that was so riveting for the entire 40 minutes that hit every point dead on and smashed every statement from the Republican parties. Clinton should have ran for president (if he could  T.T)
|
Well, this is amusing.
Hustler published this ad in the Washington Post.
![[image loading]](http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/9/9/9/enhanced-buzz-5541-1347198183-4.jpg)
|
On September 10 2012 07:46 Savio wrote:I'm not sure what is exactly going on in this pic, but I find it funny. + Show Spoiler +"Vice President Joe Biden talks to customers during a stop at Cruisers Diner, Sept. 9, in Seaman, Ohio." --http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/09/13763392-biden-cozies-up-to-voters-in-ohio?lite
Another interesting picture from today:
![[image loading]](http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/World/660/371/Obama%202012_Angu%20(16)660.jpg)
How in the world did that guy not get his arm broken by SS?
|
On September 10 2012 09:17 BlueBird. wrote:
Savio can you imagine if a Muslim led a mostly Christian High School in the deep south in a Muslim prayer. What do you think some of the parents would do in response to this? What kind of bullying or what not would the student receive? Basically I don't think it's as equal as you say it is, and would lead to the school banning prayer probably. What if it was some Haitian Vodou dance/prayer/ritual? I'm sure people would be upset, but really it's just this student's religion. What if it was something really out there like a prayer to Aphrodite for great sex?
If a student wants to lead a prayer fine by me, but as soon as the school is involved in anyway it's not ok, and I'm sure once different parents voice their opinions the majority will win out, basically favoring the dominant religion.
There are places like Catholic school etc where you are free too mix religion in as much as you want if you want your kid to grow up in that environment that is an option for you.
This isn't really a government issue(since the government should have basically no interaction with religion), more of a social issue though. Another example of religion leading to intolerance.
meh, I am from a minority religion and I never got offended when Christian prayers were given. And I wouldn't if Muslim prayers were given.
|
On September 10 2012 12:30 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 07:46 Savio wrote:I'm not sure what is exactly going on in this pic, but I find it funny. + Show Spoiler +"Vice President Joe Biden talks to customers during a stop at Cruisers Diner, Sept. 9, in Seaman, Ohio." --http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/09/13763392-biden-cozies-up-to-voters-in-ohio?lite Another interesting picture from today: How in the world did that guy not get his arm broken by SS?
I want to do that so much now. Bear hug him to death for coming out and supporting gay marriage. Lmao.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-120909-biden-cannon.photoblog900.jpg)
