|
Grex > Agora46 > #92: Keep your religion off your private property! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 185 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 141 of 185:
| 
Aug 22 19:57 UTC 2003 |
Our founding persons wrote the first amendment because they saw the
consequences of the church meddling in state affairs and the state
meddling in church affairs. No, they were mostly not against religion, but
many of them were deists at best and pretty much avoided religious
organization. But most founders did think a republic could be run without
religions, and they founded one - the USA.
My three children have never committed a felony. The oldest is 48. They
are all educated, civilized, contributors to society, and non-religious.
Why would you assume otherwise? It would seem that you are a narrow minded
demagogue, and your likes are one of the things wrong with our country.
|
klg
|
|
response 142 of 185:
|
Aug 22 20:12 UTC 2003 |
re: "#141 (rcurl): ... But most founders did think a republic could be
run without religions ...."
Not according to our readings.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 143 of 185:
|
Aug 22 20:32 UTC 2003 |
You are clearly mistaken, as our constitution nowhere requires religion.
|
pvn
|
|
response 144 of 185:
|
Aug 30 07:28 UTC 2003 |
Yes, repeat, no , it merely evolved from a context that presupposed
such. "Endowed by the Creator" for example ain't exactly a "secular"
statement. And you claim 'deists' are athiests which is patently
absurd. The genius of the US Constitution is that ultimately it is the
individual citizen granted authority (perhaps even 'ex nihilo')
delegated to State (or federal). Thus if the citizens of New Zion want
to have a cross as part of its city symbol it is neither the state nor
the federal government's place to prohibit it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 145 of 185:
|
Aug 30 20:04 UTC 2003 |
It obviously did NOT evolve "from a context that presupposed such", or
there would be some content that mentioned "such". The writers, of course,
had some personal opinions on "such", and probably on other matters too
such as their diet, but kept that (and personal diet recommendations)
strictly to themselves, as we all should if we are public servants.
It certainly is the federal governments obligation to deny religious
expression in the course of public duties. Any such religious expression
is inclined to "establish" because of the public authority held by public
servants.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 146 of 185:
|
Sep 16 05:31 UTC 2003 |
Rane, you insist upon considering the Consitution in a vacuum. It was not
written in one. The authors had many other texts, which provided the
background for what they put into that short document.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 147 of 185:
|
Sep 16 07:13 UTC 2003 |
Not at all - in fact I said so directly. Everyone has a background that
influences their behavior. But the founders, GIVEN their background, choose
to completely eliminate religion from the governmental structure they created.
That speaks volumes to their intent.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 148 of 185:
|
Sep 16 15:42 UTC 2003 |
No, they didn't "eliminate religion," they eliminated the established churches
(that is, the state-run churches) from the Federal government. It's a big
difference, but one that just doesn't' seem to get through to some people.
(Including some currently sitting Justices.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 149 of 185:
|
Sep 16 16:16 UTC 2003 |
They eliminated religion *"from the governmental structure" as specified
throughout the Constitution*, is what I asserted.
|
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.
|