This 'religion' thing

The Washington Times ^ | Balint Vazsonyi

[VinnyTex]

First things first. Let us get the myth about "separation of church and state" out of the way. A thousand dollars in cash to anyone who can find such a provision in the U.S. Constitution.

Two thousand dollars to anyone who can establish a rational connection between "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and the American Civil Liberties Union's assertion that writing "God bless America" on a high school marquee is unconstitutional.

[alpowolf]

Most would not 'fess up that they seek active government support of religion. But to me, someone who insists that public schools inculcate "Christian" values "because we are a Christian nation" is indeed seeking government religion.

IMHO most supporters of school prayer have Christian prayers in mind. I doubt that they would look upon Wiccan activities as acceptable. They have certainly howled loudly about the U.S. Army chaplains allowing and supporting Wiccan ceremonies (Ft. Hood? I can't recall.) Now, if they support all religion, why did they complain about this?

[Protagoras]

The solution is to privatize education, because compulsory funding for same is infringement on all of our rights.

I agree with this and it is indeed an important issue, but it is not the only issue on this whole topic. The issue I would raise is often overlooked.

The threat of Religion having undue influence on government is no greater than the threat of government having undue influence on religion.

I personally don't know which I fear most.

[CubicleGuy]

I always assumed they added that line when we went off the gold standard, since from then on one could only pray that the green slips of paper would continue to be worth anything.

LOL!

[alpowolf]

I gather that is your "subtle" way of objecting to the title "advocate of govt religion". I guess you didn't mean what you said in #62, or that you interpret it somewhat more loosely than I. I apologize if the characterization offends you. Many people who support using govt to advance religion mean exactly that--the govt should play an active role in inculcating religious values. This to me is different from allowing everyone to speak their piece in the public arena (with which I have no problem).

[Storm Orphan]

A church with all the efficiency of the post office and all the compassion of a 1970s VA hospital.

I shudder at the thought.

[Lev]

What religion?

Does it really matter which? I don't want to pay for any.

[logos]

I think that's ridiculous.

Well, that makes us even, then. By and large, most of your comments I've seen seem pretty ridiculous.

[Nebullis]

You pay for the constitutional right to free expression of religion whether you want to or not.

That right is not fungible, salable or open to privatization.

[logos]

Most would not 'fess up that they seek active government support of religion.

That's because they have nothing to "fess up". Get out and talk to some real-life Christians; educate yourself. Stop fighting the demons of your own imagination.

[OWK]

How about you my friend?

Do you think it is moral to compel men to pay for the advancement of ideas they do not share or support?

[Nebullis]

Do you think it is moral to compel men to pay for the advancement of ideas they do not share or support?

Is it moral for elected officials to express ideas some of their constituants may disagree with?

[Protagoras]

Do you think it is moral to compel men to pay for the advancement of ideas they do not share or support?

It seems you were raised before on this thread, I'll raise you again.

It is immoral to compel men to pay for any ideas whatsoever, even those they support or share. :-)

[End Cartesian math gnosticism]

The statement "God Bless America" posted anywhere or sung even with devotional emotion publicly does not [repeat: DOES NOT] constitute an "establishment of religion," a technical designation deriving from English law and religious controversies from the 17th century. An "establishment" of religion was the official designation in law of a state church such as the Church of England, the Congregational Church, or the Roman Catholic Church as an official government institution, membership in which was necessary to hold office, be considered a legal citizen, or vote, own property, attend official universities, get important jobs in the government,be exempted from punitive taxes, etc.

The ban on an "establishment" of a Christian denomination as a state church did not include a ban on public discussions of religion, God, religious texts,religious language, the immortality of the soul, life after death , moral distinctions of good and evil, sin, holiness, etc. It also did not provide for such bans specifically to protect atheists from getting their feelings hurt, being offended, embarrassed, or whatever. There is no constitutional ban on mentioning or discussing the existence of God, His nature, disposition, providence, etc. There is no constitutional protection from being exposed to public religious speech or displays of the free exercise of religion.

The constitution did not "privatize" religion in the manner suggested by secular humanist activists. It also did not prohibit school or civic prayer, the reading of the Bible in schools, or spoken references to God or divine providence by U.S. leaders in the 18th and 19th centuries. These were not understood as "establishments" and they did not bind on citizenship, voting rights, official qualification for public office, or other legally regulated activities in "establishments" of religion in prior Anglo-American historical experience. Totalitarian secular humanism, as currently marketed, was not intended by the "establishment" clause in the U.S. Constitution. When President Bush says or sings "God Bless America" he is exercising free speech and is not promulgating an establishment of a state church or binding citizens in any legally compelling way. A sign which reads "God Bless America" is of the same type. It does not compel assent in order to qualify for citizenship or civil rights. No one's civil rights are violated when the President or anyone else, including a school principal or teacher, merely says "God Bless America."

Beyond that, it is ridiculous that schools are considered organs of the government or state regulating citizenship or binding on Americans in any legal way. The pursuit of knowledge is a private civil right and should not be regulated by the government or subjected to its surveillance or manipulation by the mediocre cabals who manage to gain control of the governmental machinery imposed on education. People who surrender this right are foolish. We all become the victims of their self-victimization. For one thing, they clearly don't understand the "establishment" clause and become public pests fretting in their ignorance.

[alpowolf]

Get out and talk to some real-life Christians; educate yourself. Stop fighting the demons of your own imagination

I got all of these ideas from real-life Christians. Christians I personally know. They very sincerely believe that we are a "Christian nation"--their words not mine!. They strongly believe that it is the government's duty to spread the Gospel and that we will be punished--as a nation--if it does not. These are decent, sincere people who have what is, IMHO, a bad idea.

I am not, as you are suggesting, imagining this.

[atlaw]

Is this your litmus test for christianity? To be a true christian I must agree with you that public schools constitute a covenant with the devil and death? If it is, I think your view of christianity is just a tad on the peculiar side. And frankly, this is the first time I've heard someone declare that the eighth commandment pertains in any way to the issue of public schools. Seems tenuous to me.

[Storm Orphan]

It is immoral to compel men to pay for any ideas whatsoever, even those they support or share. :-)

Ding ding ding - No more calls, folks, we have a winner.

[Nebullis]

It is immoral to compel men to pay for any ideas whatsoever, even those they support or share. :-)

Ah! (Good boy!)

The high road to anarchy.

[Storm Orphan]

So you think theft is okay?

Morality benefits from economy of scale?

That government declining to initiate force in collecting compulsory taxes = anarchy?

I think Bizarro World Library would like the dictionary you borrowed back.

[Quester]

Mt 17:24 ¶ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? 25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. Mt 22:15 ¶ Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. Hmmm, seems JESUS would not be so worked up about this as you. I rather think I'll follow His lead.

[sakic]

Do I have the right to fly in an airplane? I don't see it in the Constitution.