Separation of Church and State: a caveat phrase that militant atheists use in an attempt to take the concept of God off of the face of the planet. However, no such doctrine exists in the constitution.
Homework assignment: I want you to go onto Google and search US Constitution (I refuse to use google as a verb). Then, I want you to read the First Amendment. Then, I want you to read it again. Now, I want you to read it a third time.
Do you see what I'm getting at? There is no such thing as "separation of church and state."
Separation of church and state was a phrase used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there should be "a great wall of separation of church and state." People from the left-of-center say that because Thomas Jefferson was the one who wrote the Constitution, that it is law because he believed in it. Well, Thomas Jefferson also believed in slavery as an economical way of maintaining farmland. Does that mean that slavery was implied in the 4th amendment? Of course not! The law is not implied, it is written.
Go back and read the first 16 words in the first amendment. Actually, don't go back, I will post them right here:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This basically means that the government will not advocate a religion or prohibit a religion, thereby separating chruch and state.
But it doesn't mean that kids can't pray in schools, it doesn't mean that the 10 commandments can't be displayed outside a courthouse.
--Mike
By allowing school prayer, government is making a law that respects religions. It prohibits the free exercise of religions that do not advocate prayer. Churches and other religious establishments are there so that you can go and pray there. You do not need to pray in school.
The posting of the ten commandments in federal buildings is the most blatant violation of the first amendment, as government is obviously respecting an establishment of religion by drawing attention to a religious symbol.
But the first amendment says that the congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof. Allowing prayer in school certainly doesn't establish a religion, and it allows the free exercise of religion. Certain devout Muslims, for instance, are required to pray 5 times a day toward Mecca.
The ten commandments were donated by a private organization. It's not as if the congress (state or federal) ordered the construction and erection of them.
--Mike
Why should I have to sit there idily while you pray? If you want to exercise your religion, you are permitted to attend a local religious establishment. Prayer in school respects the establishment of religion.
But the government allowed them to be displayed meaning that government respected the establishment of a religion and endorsing this religion which is associated with the ten commandments.
The form 'respecting' as used in the first amendment cannot be changed into a verb (giving it different meaning in modern connotation). It means regarding. Congress shall pass no law respecting (that is, having to do with) the establishment of a religion (that is, the congress creating or instituting a religion, thereby enforcing it on the people, as happened in England. Remember the Anglican Church?) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (I don't care how you read that, prohibiting prayer is definitely prohibiting the free exercise of religion).
You have to swear on the friggin' bible! What will a statue of the ten commandments do?
--Mike
Prohibiting prayer in schools or other government buildings is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Prohibiting it in religious buildings is. Prayer in school would force others who do not want to pray to do something that is against their personal beliefs.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=503591
We do not have to swear on the bible. A statue of the ten commandments implies that government supports this religion and implies that it does not support others.
By the way, the Supreme Court agrees with me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCreary_County_v._ACLU_of_Kentucky
There's a difference between forcing someone to pray and allowing prayer. It's logic like that which allows for indoor smoking bans.
And I got my cases mixed up. Apparently the statue was allowed to stand in the Van Orden v. Perry case, however the ten commandments inside (the McCreary County v. ACLU case) was disallowed.
--Mike
I forgot to mention a highly relevant case decided by the Supreme Court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale
Holding: "Government-directed, denominatially neutral and non-mandatory prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."
I should also mention the Lemon test created by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
"1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion."
There is not legitimate secular purpose for school prayer. Prayer in schools was created for advancing religion.