One Nation, UNDER GOD!

[Guest]

I didn't merely refer to the ORIGINAL document (inclusive of its "Bill of Rights"), but the Constitution in toto as it stands at this hour, zwyts.

Liberals always pay attention to the first phrase..."Congress shall pass no law establishing religion"...but they FORGET the second..."nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."

Get it? "FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"...the law was placed there to PROTECT churches FROM the State, NOT the other way around. In essence, zwyts, it means freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.

Not everything is plain language.

Just because the word separation is not in there, does not mean that such a notion has not been deduced over the years.

[stormie_skies]

However, there is still NO "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. That phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson.

True enough about the "separation of church and state" ... that phrase was taken from the writings of Thomas Jefferson (was it in the Federalist Papers? I dont remember off the top of my head...), who was a deist with no love for the organized church (couldn't this at least go to the INTENT of the founding fathers?).

However, we do have an "Establishment Clause" in the First Amendment. In the 1946 Everson v. Board of Education decision, the USSC set a precedent concerning the interpretation of the Establishment Clause - it stated that "no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions," because that state or federal support would constitute the state establishment or endorsement of the benefitting religion.

Though later cases have nitpicked at the details of that interpretation, the core of it has remained ~ the courts consistantly find that, in order to avoid state endorsement of a particular religion, the state must remain neutral to ALL religions. Thus the legal concept of a wall between church and state ~ even if it is not phrased as such.

[stormie_skies]

Liberals always pay attention to the first phrase..."Congress shall pass no law establishing religion"...but they FORGET the second..."nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."
Get it? "FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"...the law was placed there to PROTECT churches FROM the State, NOT the other way around. In essence, zwyts, it means freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.

When the state endorses a religion, any religion, that endorsement is a de facto limitation on the free exercise of those who do not share that religion.
For example, if the Pillars of Islam were etched in stone in the courthouse you attend, and if before your case began the judge handed out prayer rugs and asked everyone to kneel and face Mecca, wouldn't you feel that your right or ability to be Christian and Christian only had been imposed upon?
I don't know about anyone else, but that would seem a little odd to me...

[streetsoldier]

Thomas Jefferson's now-famous letter was written to a group of Baptist church leaders who feared that Maryland (then largely Catholic) would make Catholicism a "state religion"...in this letter, Jefferson emphasized that there existed a "wall of separation between Church and State" effectively BARRING any State, or the Federal Government, from EVER interfering with the practice of any faith as he (individuals), or they (whatever gongregation) saw fit.

It was a PRIVATE letter, which I believe is now in the Smithsonian Institution, and has been bady MISquoted over the last 35 years to suit those who blanch at ANY free and open display of faith.

That "wall" is present to protect the churches/synagogues/mosques from government interference in exercising their right to practice their faiths freely...not the other way around. As I said...freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.

One other quote from Jefferson that you might find distasteful...

"I tremble when I reflect that God is just, and that His wrath will not be forever constrained."

Think on this...carefully.

[stormie_skies]

Freedom FROM religion in a state-sanctioned sense IS freedom to practice religion. There is a HUGE difference, both legally and morally, between the practice of religion by individuals, religious establishments, non-profit organizations, corporations etc and the endorsement of a particular religion by taxpayer-funded government entities.
I see no effort by the state to prevent people from practicing their faith at home, at work, at church or on the street. However, as I explained earlier, the endorsement of a particular religion by the government is in nature exclusionary. Members of all religions should not be forced to have their tax dollars pay for the promotion of a faith in which they do not believe.
If you were required to pay taxes to support a mosque or a temple or another religious institution that directly contradicted your beliefs, surely you would feel you were being forced by the state to participate in (at least in a monetary sense) a religion. Thats not freedom ~ thats dictatorship by the majority.

Oh, and here's another great Jefferson quote: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

[WEATHER53]

I didn't merely refer to the ORIGINAL document (inclusive of its "Bill of Rights"), but the Constitution in toto as it stands at this hour, zwyts.

Liberals always pay attention to the first phrase..."Congress shall pass no law establishing religion"...but they FORGET the second..."nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."

Get it? "FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"...the law was placed there to PROTECT churches FROM the State, NOT the other way around. In essence, zwyts, it means freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.

Gotta give this a 9.5 on scale of 10. All these people that object to all these things, if they were really secure in their convictions, then they could simply abstain and move on as self fullfilled but being fundamentally flawed in character they can derive satifaction only from prohibiting us from carrying on with what we choose. As you so well said, freedom of religion, not freedom from it, and certainly not forced freedom from it for all- as forced by a few who hate it.

[stormie_skies]

Question for Streetsoldier and Weather....

If your child's school opened the morning with a pledge "under Allah," or if your courthouse erected a monument to the 5 pillars of Islam, would you accept it?

[Lindaloo]

Question for Streetsoldier and Weather....

If your child's school opened the morning with a pledge "under Allah," or if your courthouse erected a monument to the 5 pillars of Islam, would you accept it?

No comparison, this is America, One Nation Under God, not Allah. They have mosques for Allah. We also speak English here.

[WEATHER53]

Question for Streetsoldier and Weather....

If your child's school opened the morning with a pledge "under Allah," or if your courthouse erected a monument to the 5 pillars of Islam, would you accept it?

I will respond to "what if" hypotheticals as I always do. There are enough "what is" in the world to focus on as opposed to engaging in the make believe of what if.

Having said that I will violate my tenant but can only give you a make believe answer to a make believe scenario. The USA public school system is not going to do that nor is the court system, again playing make pretend if they somehow did try to do that, since it is against the grain of established American culture-which under God etc is Absolutely not-I would be opposed to it.
I also note that whenever someone cannot defend their position as it is based on the actual, current reality, they typically resort to this "what if" stuff.

[Lindaloo]

EXCELLENT post 53!! KUDOS!!

[Guest]

Well said 53!!!!!

[stormie_skies]

No comparison, this is America, One Nation Under God, not Allah.

Actually, perhaps my post was a bit more simplistic than it should have been, considering the fact that "allah" is simply the arabic language word for "god" (Christians who speak arabic also refer to their deity as Allah). Actually, the Muslim religion also worships what it considers to be the God of Abraham, same as Judaism and Christianity, but I digress...

The USA public school system is not going to do that nor is the court system, again playing make pretend if they somehow did try to do that, since it is against the grain of established American culture-which under God etc is Absolutely not-I would be opposed to it.

When you refer to the freedom to practice religion, I assume you mean ALL religion, as the Constitution does and as all legal precendent clearly intends. If that is what you mean, and if you truly believe that governmental institutions should be as open to the practice of religion as anyplace else (by all parties within), then what is so far-fetched about a Muslim teacher choosing to lead his students in afternoon prayer, and what makes that so different from a Christian teacher doing the same? Why is the concept of a Muslim judge wishing to erect a monument to Islam on public property so unrealistic, when apparently Christian judges have no misgivings about such a move?

There is no national religion established in the Constitution. And as long as we are not willing to take that step (as our founding fathers were not), the freedom to practice religion will be inclusive to all religions. Is that something you want your government infused with?

[Lindaloo]

Well, this debate has now turned into Allah. We are a nation Under God. What is so hard to understand about that? If you migrate here then learn it and expect to say it. Of course, you do not have to because afterall that is your right. BUT, you do not have the right to come here and change things to meet your own agenda.

The agenda of this Father is to hurt the Mother of his daughter. Period!

[j]

The agenda of this Father is to hurt the Mother of his daughter. Period!

I agree 100%

[Guest]

Well, this debate has now turned into Allah. We are a nation Under God. What is so hard to understand about that? If you migrate here then learn it and expect to say it. Of course, you do not have to because afterall that is your right. BUT, you do not have the right to come here and change things to meet your own agenda.

The agenda of this Father is to hurt the Mother of his daughter. Period!

[Lindaloo]

Well, this debate has now turned into Allah. We are a nation Under God. What is so hard to understand about that? If you migrate here then learn it and expect to say it. Of course, you do not have to because afterall that is your right. BUT, you do not have the right to come here and change things to meet your own agenda.

The agenda of this Father is to hurt the Mother of his daughter. Period!

I need a trash compactor.

[Stephanie]

I find it interesting that really this whole debate is about symantics. Think about it - each religion has "God" that they pray to - just the name is different. It seems to me that the pledge covers more people than we thought!

Like Lindaloo said, it is your right not to recite the Pledge if "under God" offends you - you are not being forced to say it. Sounds to me like you have a choice. The majority of the people in this land believe in God and that's why I think it should stay - MAJORITY RULES.

[streetsoldier]

WOW!!!! Did I just read that Stephanie agrees with us?

BTW, this is one thing that I find quite admirable about being a Mason...an applicant MUST believe in a Supreme Being, "in any of the 1,001 names in which He is called upon by men".

MAJORITY RULES...good shot, Steph!

[Skywatch_NC]

Well, this debate has now turned into Allah. We are a nation Under God. What is so hard to understand about that? If you migrate here then learn it and expect to say it. Of course, you do not have to because afterall that is your right. BUT, you do not have the right to come here and change things to meet your own agenda.

The agenda of this Father is to hurt the Mother of his daughter. Period!

I need a trash compactor.

LOL, Linda!

[Pburgh]

I think that is perfect Stephanie. Majority Rules!!!!!