Newsweek Magazine had a small article on U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris who suggested the separation between church and state was not what our founding fathers had wanted or suggested in the creation of the United States. Perhaps this is true but the critical point that everyone seems to be forgetting is that it is inconsequential. I will say it again- it does not matter. In the days of the founding fathers the only people they believed could vote were the wealthy white landowners and yet you don't hear Harris suggesting we return to that.
We need to remember that any 200+ year old rules that may have been "effective" at the time must be reconsidered because as we grow we change and the United States of America is not the same America it was 200 years ago. We have added to the constitution as we matured as a country to protect the rights of all citizens when the collective America realized that some people were ignored when our laws were written and that furthermore, they shouldn't have been.
Our founding fathers did some great things and had good ideas for their time but let us not forget they were humans who made errors as well. (Ignoring the rights of minorities for starters.) If we ever want to become great Americans ourselves we must blaze a new trail and do the best to give equal rights to all human beings and not be held back by 200 year old ideals that no longer apply to our America today.
The right to practice religion must also include those who choose not to practice it at all.
Yeah I think the founding fathers even anticipated this very concept and included a procedure for something called AMENDMENTS. So we can AMEND our constitution. Because things CHANGE.
And despite the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," North Dakota still has enforced laws against stores being open between midnight and noon on Sundays. Which means when I get off work Saturday night, I have to hurry my ass up to get to Walmart before it closes. Even though Congress is not supposed to make any laws respecting religion.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
is not Congress
When the United States accepted the Constitution, Mass had a religious government. They were required to become secular, which they (eventually) did.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I had no idea bout that. Which religion was in control?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
...which disestablished its official state church in 1833 (making it the last of the original 13 colonies to do so).
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
But that was based on my knowledge of Nathaniel Hawthorne, and not on any historical information. So thanks, BO!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
You make a good point. I would like to add that one thing many religious people forget is that the First Amendment protects not only the individual's right to practice or not practice a religion, it also protects religion from government control and restriction. You can't have it both ways...you can enforce a law that students must pray to the Christian god, or any god, for that matter, AND expect the government to stay out of your affairs. If religion dictates what government does, how long before government begins dictating what religion does? I don't know any faith group that would welcome that kind of governmental interference.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
P.S. There's a rat in 'separate.' That's a spelling tip, not any kind of political statement.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
is for, from and of...which means government keep out!
Which is why it serves the religious to quit trying to mingle religion and civic life.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
but there is God on coins buildings etc....what is the best way to deal with that?
...and restored to their original, non-religious forms. People often forget that the founding fathers didn't pick "In god we trust" as our nation's motto. They picked "E Pluribus Unum," (or "One From many"). The adoption of the new motto, and its inclusion on the currency are both examples where our government failed in its responsibility to prevent religious establishments.
Personally, I really LOVE the motto that is found on much of our earliest currency...
Look closely...it says, "MIND YOUR BUSINESS," which I think it GREAT advice.
As for "god on buildings," it depends on the building, and the context of the reference to "god" in, on or around it. Just mentioning someone's imaginary friend isn't automatically a religious establishment, but it can be and often is. Context is everything.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
You have every right to not practice religion, however, it only says congress shall pass no law enforcing religion nor, PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERSIZE THERE OF.
If a state votes in their government, those officials are supposed to represent the ideas of the whole, if not the people need to change them out. If the people as a whole, want more religious undertones to laws... then thats what they will get, you shouldn't be able to take that away from them...
The few that don't like it shouldn't be able to stop the majority who clearly do like it.
Christmas is a recognized holiday by congress was that over stepping their bounds? No, it was voted for nearly unanimously.
You seem to only like the first part of the sentence and forget that you cannot stop other people from exersizing their religion. Honestly, they do not shove anything down your throat, if you want to say happy holidays... good...
However, when I tell you Merry Christmas take it as a compliment because I am sending you good titetings (sp?) in my viewpoints... When a jewish person says Happy Quanza or whatever, I am going to take that the same way.
My point is that laws reflect the decissions of people as a whole, and when the whole do not like something, thats fine... but I am sorry that you don't like that walmart is forced to close, but thats because your citizens wanted it. It has nothing to do with religion honestly, it has to do with the will of the people (which may or may not have been guided by religion)
Full full writings and ideas see TravisMcCrea.com
You can be a liberal republican, you can be a conservative democrat... just letting you know.
Well...if you want to be technical, what is says is...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
You have a right to practice your religion. You do NOT have a right to use the Laws of the United States to force other people to practice alongside you.
Factually incorrect (at least, as of the 14th Amendment, anyway). The whole POINT of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of INDIVIDUAL citizens from the infringement of their basic rights by the majority. No amount of majority support can legally justify the infringement of the basic rights of even ONE citizen. That is why we were founded as a Constitutional Republic, and not a Direct Democracy.
Factually incorrect. Christmas became a U.S. holiday by presidential declaration in 1870. There was no "vote" involved. And even then, the decisions was highly controversial, as a large portion of protestant sects at the time considered the holiday to be of pagan origin (which it is). The Courts have ruled that the holiday was legally okay, despite its religious connotations, due to the fact that they holiday serves legitimate secular purposes. It doesn't violate the Establishment Clause to recognize that a great portion of our population (both secular AND religious) uses this time each year to visit family and friends, and to engage in a variety of traditions that may or may not be religious, depending on one's particular family. However, the law DOES prohibit the government from engaging in religious ceremonies and displays associated with the holiday.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
beliefs about God shoild never be forced on anyone.
Sandra Day O'Connor wrote:
"The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition...[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion."
The "Lemon Test" is from Lemon v. Kurtzman
The Court's ruling in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
I have a paper on this from college somewhere, maybe I'll make it into a blog post soon.
DFA
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.