|
Grex > Agora46 > #92: Keep your religion off your private property! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 185 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 150 of 185:
| 
Sep 16 16:36 UTC 2003 |
No, they did not eliminate religion; they elminated the church. This is the
critical difference you just cannot (or will not?) see.
|
tod
|
|
response 151 of 185:
|
Sep 16 16:48 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 152 of 185:
|
Sep 16 17:12 UTC 2003 |
They eliminated *mention of religion playing a role in government*. Are we
there yet?
|
tod
|
|
response 153 of 185:
|
Sep 16 17:15 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 154 of 185:
|
Sep 16 17:27 UTC 2003 |
That is what the first amendment states, but the body of the Constitution
is what has no mention of religion except for the requirement that it not
be a condition of holding office.
I've just been talking about what is in the Constitution, not about the
results of the implementation of the Constitution. I think it is
significant that no role for religion is stated in the Constitution. This
was a deliberate act of the founders, regardless of their own several
religious persuasions.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 155 of 185:
|
Sep 16 18:14 UTC 2003 |
And I think you are wrong about the significance.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 156 of 185:
|
Sep 16 19:17 UTC 2003 |
So, you think they just "forgot" to tell us where it is OK for religion
to have an official governmental function?
|
bru
|
|
response 157 of 185:
|
Sep 16 21:59 UTC 2003 |
well "In God We Trust" seems to be fairly well used by the Government. Is
money our government religion?
What about ont eh front of government buildings? Many of them have a mention
of God.
And who has not gone in for a IRS audit praying to God and that he will listen
to them.
|
tod
|
|
response 158 of 185:
|
Sep 16 22:51 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 159 of 185:
|
Sep 16 22:53 UTC 2003 |
None of that is in the Constitution nor specifically sanctioned by the
Constitution (but rather implicitly banned in the First Amendment).
But, yes, money is the religion of a lot of people, and many in government.
Though that isn't relevant here, as what the Constitution means by "religion"
is pretty well understood.
I presume that thousands have gone for an IRS audit without any thought
of gods. That's Readers Digest humor.
|
other
|
|
response 160 of 185:
|
Sep 17 04:17 UTC 2003 |
Consider the source.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 161 of 185:
|
Sep 17 05:16 UTC 2003 |
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting
for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation" (Art I, Sec 3).
"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the
following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) . . . "
(Art II, Sec 1).
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of
the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers,
both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by
oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States" (Art VI) {An interesting distinction: Oaths are,
by their very nature, religious, but no "religious test" can be used as
a quallification.}
|
rcurl
|
|
response 162 of 185:
|
Sep 17 05:45 UTC 2003 |
There is no contradiction there. A person my state an unrequired oath -
or affirmation. There is no "religious test" involved.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 163 of 185:
|
Sep 17 11:32 UTC 2003 |
And yet, religion still has a role in governing, as demonstrated. It occurred
to me a bit later that what the Constitution, including the 1st Amendment does
is keep the government out of the churches.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 164 of 185:
|
Sep 17 16:04 UTC 2003 |
That is the argument of church leaders that have also opposed the display
of the 10 commandment monument, prayer in school, etc. It is only a
lunatic fringe that keeps trying to seat a theocracy. But it still goes
both ways - keep Religion out of Govenment and Government out of Religion.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 165 of 185:
|
Sep 17 16:42 UTC 2003 |
(Did you think I was in favour of that monument? Prayer in school is a more
difficult question, because I believe it should be _permitted_ but *not*
required.)
Religion cannot be kept out of government as long as people are religious.
The idea of separating religion from life is fallacious.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 166 of 185:
|
Sep 17 16:52 UTC 2003 |
That's why I capitalized Religion, to distinguish the philosophy in religion
from the business of Religion. It is the latter that is "separated" from
the State in the first amendment.
|
gull
|
|
response 167 of 185:
|
Sep 17 17:49 UTC 2003 |
Re #165: There are no schools that have banned people from praying.
What's not allowed is a publicly lead prayer. In a school environment
anything like that becomes effectively required.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 168 of 185:
|
Sep 17 21:06 UTC 2003 |
I don't agree that it "becomes effectively required," but I do understand the
sentiment. Banning publicly led prayer is a violation of the 1st Amendment's
protection of free exercise. And we are never going to agree on that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 169 of 185:
|
Sep 17 22:06 UTC 2003 |
That's right. There are legal limits to "free exercise" and publicly lead
prayer is as inflammatory as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. There
are many other examples of legal limits on "free exercise". Live with it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 170 of 185:
|
Sep 17 22:13 UTC 2003 |
I do. Doesn't I mean I have to like it. I live with lots of wrongnesses.
This is just one more.
|
gull
|
|
response 171 of 185:
|
Sep 18 14:23 UTC 2003 |
Re #168: Let's take Christianity out of the picture for a moment. Let's
say that the principal of the local public school started reading a
prayer to Allah over the public address system at the beginning of class
each day. Wouldn't you see that as him unfairly imposing his religious
views on students who weren't Muslim?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 172 of 185:
|
Sep 18 17:54 UTC 2003 |
It wasn't the example of the principal leading prayer that I was
considering, because I _do_ consider that crossing the line into the
"required" zone. I was thinking more of a student-organised event, where
all participants were physically present, led by students. Students,
specifically including the BMOC, do not have the authority to carry it
into the "required" zone.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 173 of 185:
|
Sep 18 18:54 UTC 2003 |
I have no problem with student led prayer in such a circumstances, as long
as the event is solely for those wishing to participate in such prayer,
and that the venue and scheduling processes are available to any student
led events. This is the same as the use of school facilities for student
organizations.
|
bru
|
|
response 174 of 185:
|
Sep 18 20:29 UTC 2003 |
Not if the school were mainly muslim...
But why do they ban kids congregating in a room for a prayer session?
|