Posted on 07/11/2005 9:37:16 AM PDT by Warhammer
Guidry v. Broussard (1990) A high school valedictorian planned to devote a portion of her graduation speech to the importance of Jesus Christ in her life. The principal ordered her to remove the offending portion; she refused and was eliminated from the graduation program. The district court and the court of appeals upheld the principal’s action.
I'm not gonna be as generous as highball. I'm calling this one what it is - an outright lie.
Did the author actually call for church and state to be combined into one institution, making it illegal for anyone to profess another religion other than Christianity? I haven't finished reading it yet, but I doubt it.
You ought to cut people who disagree with you a little bit of slack. It isn't right to question people's motives that way. Maybe next time it will be you with slightly inaccurate information. You wouldn't want to be called a liar. In any case, Always Right's comment was uncomfortably close to reality:
"In the May 1995 case of Jane Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District, Federal District Judge Samuel Kent placed severe restrictions on voluntary, student-initiated prayer. Additionally, Judge Kent ruled voluntary, student-initiated prayer at graduation ceremonies and athletic events was permissible only with court-ordered restrictions on the content of prayer.
In his oral opinion, Judge Kent stated: "And make no mistake, the Court is going to have a U.S. Marshall in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this Court, that student will be summarily arrested and face up to 6 months incarceration in the Galveston County jail..." Judge Kent went on to say: "Anybody who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with them."
http://txgop.org/newsroom/newsDisplay.php?id=103
No, he called for the secular institution of government to be subservient to the Christian Bible, and specifically to the Ten Commandments. That alone makes it a theocracy. But he added a few tidbits to ensure its meaning:
Finally, those justices who will not acknowledge God as the “Supreme Judge of the World,” or who would inhibit the acknowledgement of God from public office, are inherently disqualified from serving as judicial nominees for the United States Supreme Court
Will the nominee publicly acknowledge and fear the God of Scripture as the lawgiver from whose revelation all valid laws of man are derived? It is important to note that Scripture, which communicates the transcendent law of God to all men at all times, reveals that all judges (regardless of their national background or preexisting law system) are bound to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ (the “Son”) and rule by his righteous commands.
Simply put, those who would divorce the Lawgiver from the law are not merely disqualified from holding the highest judicial office in the land by Scripture, they are disqualified by virtue of the constitutional requirement that they uphold their oath to enforce the Constitution which presupposes this same Lawgiver.
It is time for Christians to once again assert objective and transcendent standards for the selection of our highest office holders. We are not at liberty to improvise on those standards when they do not fit our political objectives and short term vision for “success.” Our goal must be obedience. We must be God’s people in this nation, a holy remnant who insist that men and nations must acknowledge Him and no other God.
You may not see the point of this, but most would see this as the clear desire for the establishment of a theocracy, with the Bible as final law over the land, just as those Muslim countries that do have secular government still ensure that it is in compliance with the Koran. Neither of these was contemplated by the founding fathers, and the vast majority of this Country will not accept anything like that here.
The [first] test is this: Will the nominee publicly acknowledge and fear the God of Scripture as the lawgiver from whose revelation all valid laws of man are derived?This is not necessary. The position of Supreme Court justice is of one to interpret the Constitution, not the Bible or Christian theology. There is sufficient documentation from the period that, when coupled with one's intuition, to come to a reasonable approximation of what the Founders had in mind when they drafted and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think one may recognize the influence of the Bible on the Constitution, but it is not necessary for a justice to be born again to properly interpret the document.
Thanks, that's good enough to make my point.
Frightening!
'The United States Supereme(sic)Court's War on the Sovereignty of God'
Prediction: God wins.
Do I take this to mean they wouldn't have signed it, and that they weren't like-minded with the Declaration signers? Does this mean that the Founding Fathers would not have framed our Constitutional laws strictly on the basis of the freedoms and values that the Delcaration of Independence espouses?
I hope you don't mean this, because nothing could be further from the truth.
The original reason for my post was to prove that the Framers would not have wanted to separate religion from government in the manner being perpetrated on us by government today: The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote the First Amendment. He also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms.
The Founders dated all their government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.
In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration.
, "the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence" U.S. Supreme Court, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)
"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "----it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence". SCOTUS, Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)
"It is to be remembered, that the government of the United States is based on the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, by the congress of 1776; "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted." 1841, The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841)
"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Benjamin Franklin
You are free to twist it all you want. The fact that you must tie yourself into such knots illustrates the folly of your argument. The Founders wanted to keep faith and state separate, Hamilton perhaps more so than any other. And since Hamilton is largely the one responsible for our Constitution, I defer to his judgment.
Oh blow it out your butt. You think it is far fetched that someone goes to jail for saying a prayer? The ACLU recently filed a motion to do just that. We haven't got there yet, but we within a few years it will happen:
Christians Could be Sent to Jail for Praying in School
6/10/2005
By Mario Diaz
In their latest attack on Christianity, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a motion to hold Tangipahoa school board officials in Louisiana in contempt of court, asking they be jailed for praying in schools.
The Tangipahoa school board and the ACLU of Louisiana entered into an agreement, made public in an August 27, 2004, District Court Consent Judgment, which required school officials to prohibit “invocations given prior to athletic events,” “participation and/or encouragement by school officials in pre-game and post-game prayers involving student athletes,” and “invocations by students to the student body over the school’s public address system during assemblies or at any school sponsored event.” The ACLU claims school officials have violated the agreement on multiple occasions. This motion is the fourth complaint they’ve filed against the school board.
Even though this is considered a civil matter, the ACLU has asked the court to hold school officials in criminal contempt, asking for jail time. “Their refusal to comply with the Consent Decree should and must result in their removal from society—removal for a period of time sufficient to impress upon them, and like imitators, the seriousness of the Court’s order,” reads the complaint. “Anything short of actual imprisonment would be ineffective to sending that message to these individuals.”
Thanks for quoting that portion to make your point. Were I voting for Supreme Court justices, I would definitely favor those who acknowledge God as sovereign over those that do not. I think our freedoms are much safer that way. Elected officials that believe they are ultimately accountable to God will respect our freedoms and liberties, and also respect the law, much better.
But keep in mind that true Christian teaching (that is, what is consistent with the Bible) understands Christian belief is an individual thing. It is personal. It is anathema to the Christian to think that any government should force anyone to believe something. Everyone must come to Christ, seeking forgiveness of their sins and a new life, on his own.
That is one of the many differences between Christianity and Islam. Even in Islamic states that are not radically jihadist, Christians often are persecuted. There is no inner rebirth in Islam, no personal conversion. It is a religion of works, of physical acts of obedience. Therefore there is no real reason why they shouldn't use government to force this obedience. That is why democracy has such a hard time over there.
Ugh - that is awful.
That is as it should be. But it is far from many in this nation who favor Christianity as an official religious philosophy. There are quite a few here on this forum who favor a theocracy here. I am referring both to Catholics as well as other Christians.
That is one of the many differences between Christianity and Islam. Even in Islamic states that are not radically jihadist, Christians often are persecuted. There is no inner rebirth in Islam, no personal conversion. It is a religion of works, of physical acts of obedience. Therefore there is no real reason why they shouldn't use government to force this obedience. That is why democracy has such a hard time over there.
I understand the differences you are painting between the two, and right now they are as you have said, but history shows how any religious ideology can move into the political spectrum if permitted. Just look at the Church of Rome in the Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, France, Spain, the Inquisitions. Christianity is now and should be as you say a very personal thing. But the separation of Church and State philosophy was created to prevent the kinds of things that can happen when religious ideologues get in control.
The first step in that slippery slope is for religious tests of any kind for our justices or any other government official. Once you permit that, you are placing Christianity (or some other religion) in a policy-making position.
I've been on this fourm awhile, and I don't see the calls for theocracy as you do. I'll tell you what I think. I would like to see Christianity, through the democratic process of the grassroots voting their preferences, be the predominant ethic in our culture including our government.
This will take a lot of evangelism, and a lot of work. But our nation was overwhelmingly Christian when it was founded, and it was more free that anywhere on earth. Today it is less Christian that in has ever been, and is now less free and more socialistic. I believe there is a causal relationship here.
But politics aside, Christianity starts with a person acknowledging their sinful nature before God. Christ came to forgive and to heal. Government has no part in that other than to get out of the way.
Thanks for a post. I knew there was a case where the court threatend to jail students.
See posts 24 and 32.
While that is indeed disturbing, it doesn't change my central point: It isn't twisted to recognize that men may have religious beliefs but a government cannot favor one belief over another. That's the very foundation of religious freedom.
I have been on a thread recently here relating to "Is Europe Dying?" The Freeper I have been in lengthy discussions with openly prefers theocracy to democracy. A year or two ago, I was on several threads relating to the religious movement to secede and establish a Christian nation. At that time I ran into a number of posters who were clearly pro-theocracy (at least to the point where the Bible was the principal and supreme law). As for now, anyone who subscribes to a Christian test for any justice or other official in effect subscribes to a theocracy.
I'll tell you what I think. I would like to see Christianity, through the democratic process of the grassroots voting their preferences, be the predominant ethic in our culture including our government.
This is the slippery slope I refer to. It will ultimately not end until there is an official religion in this Country, Christianity. And then of course, the battle begins for which Christian religion takes precedence. And what of Islam, or any of the other non-Christian religions. If religion is a religion of and for the individual as you say, why does it have to permeate our government and its policies?
But our nation was overwhelmingly Christian when it was founded, and it was more free that anywhere on earth.
True, and before the First Amendment, it was moving precipitously towards theocracy. Almost every nation-state within the Confederation between 1776 and 1789 had Christian only tests for government officials. When you exclude members of society from the government for religious reasons, you create artificial classes within the nation. Forcing Christianity on folks is not the way to salvation for either the people or the nation.
Today it is less Christian that in has ever been, and is now less free and more socialistic. I believe there is a causal relationship here.
History would not agree with you. First Christianity is by far the most populous religion in the US and the world. It outnumbers the next by almost a 2 to 1 margin. You are correct in that Christianity in the US has dropped from 97% in 1900 to about 85% now. But the population of the US is still by far Christian! Yes, it's more socialistic, but that's pretty easily explained by a USSC that was stacked by FDR for that very purpose. As for a freer nation, you may want to provide some examples.
Finally, like the other poster I have been discussing Europe with, he tends to correlate a drop in the population rate with a drop in Christianity. That is a fallacy of logic. The two may or may not be correlated, but simply showing two facts occurring at the same time does not create a cause and effect relationship. Both the changes in America and those in Europe are far too complex for that.
But politics aside, Christianity starts with a person acknowledging their sinful nature before God. Christ came to forgive and to heal. Government has no part in that other than to get out of the way.
We agree completely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.