Separation of Church and State May God Bless the rest of us?

[SOS2008]

Separation of Church and State..."May God Bless"...the rest of us?

In the wake of the 2004 election, last count was that the IRS was investigating 60 religious organizations for endorsing Bush from the pulpit. The mixing of religion in politics has become a much more serious problem then most Americans realize, because this number only represents organizations that were blatant enough to be caught (this time around). Other organizations advised congregations to support the candidate who represented what their religion stands for, though just as inappropriate, not to mention presumptuous. After all, one candidate may be against gay marriage and abortion, while the other is concerned about poverty, the elderly, health care, etc.--as if one can pick and choose "values." The reason why some Bush supporters were less willing to participate in exit polls was because many were block voting, which is illegal.

With regard to separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." - the First Amendment, the courts have gone back and forth on the issue with the use of various tests (the Lemon Test, Endorsement Test, Coercion Test, and ceremonial deism or the History Test).

The Coercion Test, which was advanced by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1992:

"[A]t a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so"

This immediately excludes the practice of prayer in school.

The Endorsement Test, which emphasizes government neutrality is summarized by Justice Sandra Day O'Conner:

"Endorsement sends a message to non-adherents 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..."

Justice O'Connor continued that likewise "Disapproval sends the opposite message." If it wasn't for ceremonial deism (historical usage), the Endorsement Test would exclude everything else.

Yes, the founding fathers were religious men (though some had illegitimate children, were ladies men, etc.). However the minting of all coins with "In God We Trust" was not approved until 1938, and it didn't appear on paper money until 1956. It was not until 1942 that Congress wrote the Pledge into law, with the words "under God" added later in 1954. Likewise the many and various public buildings in which the Ten Commandments are displayed were not built until more modern times, but the biggest problem with the Ten Commandments is which version to accept:

"To Jews and Christians who take their beliefs seriously, these variations can make real theological differences. For instance, there are Protestants who make much of the Catholic omission of the graven-images commandment. And because the Jewish version of the Ten Commandments begins by establishing freedom as God's intended condition for man, many Jews consider the Sabbath -- a weekly day of freedom from work -- to be a sacred moral obligation and not just a commanded ritual observance."

Though legislative prayer dates back to 1774, it is conducted during Congressional sessions by a paid Chaplin, both of which are funded by tax dollars. While the use of tax dollars (e.g., also if applicable to holiday displays), and coercion are of most importance to me personally, one can see that the founding fathers were not responsible for establishing any of these things. Also, where is the compassionate sensitivity of Christians in this country? Some legal scholars like Steven Epstein question whether mere historical usage can truly continue to validate these practices:

"The year is 2096," Epstein writes. "Muslims now comprise seventy percent of the American population, while Christians and Jews comprise only twenty-five percent collectively. Elementary school students in most public school systems begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance in which they dutifully recite that America is one nation 'under Allah;' our national currency - both coins and paper - contains the inscription codified as our national motto, 'In Allah We Trust'. ."

Epstein queries, "Would the average Christian or Jew seriously contend that this America of 2096 would not make them feel like outsiders in their own country?"

Aside from prayer in school, and demands that creation be taught versus evolution (per tax-supported facilities/services), did you know churches checked with the IRS to see if they could pray for re-election of Bush? And then they boo-hooed because they weren't allowed to have crosses (crucifixes) at the presidential inauguration. Is the inauguration a "state" function? What part of separation of church and state don't they understand?

Regarding recent debate about the Ten Commandments erected on the grounds of the Texas State Capital in 1961 (44 years ago) one argument is that of historical usage (laughable by standards of even our young country).

Per the Americans United for Separation of Church and State web site: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer Other arguments being presented in the case per this article:

Justice Antonin Scalia, for example...had an easy remedy for those who might be offended: "Look away if you don't like it." Thankfully, many of the other justices asked more thoughtful questions...Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took issue with an assertion by Religious Right attorney Mathew Staver that the Ten Commandments aren't really that religious, firing back, "Have you ever read the first four commandments?"

Just to refresh your memory:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

You can see how these commandments pertain to the American legal system.

I know these people--they tell me their beliefs--they have signs on their office doors that read: God Bless America across the American flag. I drive a lot as a part of my job, but still, I challenge you to start looking around, and like me, you may notice the increasing amount of patriotic symbolism along with religious symbolism. There's a movement in our country to remove separation of church and state, and it has been growing stronger and stronger. If you don't want to believe it, don't believe it.

 

[Pengwuino]

So now its illegal for a private organization to contribute money to a presidential campaign fund? Wow, you certainly are a tyrant. And anyone whos studied history knows there's no such thing as a separation of church and state. It is nowhere in the Constitution or the Federalist papers and the only time it was mentioned was in a personal letter to a baptist church assuring them the government would not force them to worship a single religion. How you people turned this into "no person can show off any religious symbols in public" is absolutely beyond me. You are decieving people when you say it took 150 years for mentions of God to get on our currency when in fact, a standard system of currency took decades to create after our nation was founded. You've pretty much said all private citizens need to refrain from showing any religious promotion in their daily lives. That is equivalent to telling anti-war demonstrators or anti-tobacco demonstrators or anti-abortion demonstrators that they should not be allowed to protest in public. I find it funny that you seemingly somehow feel weakened by a flag saying "God bless America" or appauled by it yet i doubt you'd feel appauled by a demonstration on some street corner. Conversely if you showed your support of atheism through some symbol or went around telling people to be atheists, that's perfectly alright. That right is protected by teh Constitution. You can worship ro not worship whatever the hell you want to or not; that right is protected by the Constitution and was its original intent.

Also, what many anti-religious people can never seem to admit is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." means absolutely what it says it means. no LAW LAW LAW. No piece of paper can go through Congress and be signed by the President of the United States that promotes or protests against a religion/belief.

 

[SOS2008]

A quick response to the post above - Churches are allowed to endorse, pray for a candidate, etc. IF willing to give up tax exemption. If you don't agree with this, you need to take it up with the IRS.

I deliberated on even posting this thread, because it is such an incendiary topic. So if I may make a suggestion -- Let's please try to keep debate on the following:

1) Whether you have the right to believe as you choose and practice the religion of your choice. I believe I have these rights beyond question.

2) My criteria for government endorsement of religion primarily is anything connected to government (tax supported) facilities/services, such as public schools, government buildings (e.g., state capital), government functions (elections, inaugurations, etc.), and so forth.

I've stated this in another thread - The intent of separation of church and state is to provide freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Please explain to me how secular, Jewish, Islamic, etc. Americans can feel freedom FROM religion if their tax dollars are being spent on Christian displays or practices?

Please tell me how your right to believe as you choose and to practice the religion of your choice per #1 is suppressed by not allowing religious content/practices according to the criteria noted in #2. Also I take the time to research and source, so please do likewise.

Otherwise, I think we will see that responses are likely to support my case--that people either support removal of separation of church and state, or don't understand what separation of church and state means.

 

[Pengwuino]

1) Whether you have the right to believe as you choose and practice the religion of your choice. I believe I have these rights beyond question.

2) My criteria for government endorsement of religion primarily is anything connected to government (tax supported) facilities/services, such as public schools, government buildings (e.g., state capital), government functions (elections, inaugurations, etc.), and so forth.

I've stated this in another thread - The intent of separation of church and state is to provide freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Please explain to me how secular, Jewish, Isamlic, etc. Americans can feel freedom FROM religion if their tax dollars are being spent on Christian displays or practices?

Well i agree #1 is one of the inalienable rights. #2 is also the correct way to look at things. No check stamped by the US Federal government should go towards a religous item/cause but if a judge wishes to use his own money to put up a cross inside his chambers, then so be it, his money, his right, his office. If i want to put a bumper sticker that says God Bless the USA on my car, its my right. Me placing that bumper sticker does not in any way force you into being a christian/jew/muslim.

And you are missing a third option. You can have people who don't want a "seperation of church and state", agroup that doesn't know what a separation of church and state means, PLUS a group who fully understands what the separation of church and state means. I am part of the latter obviously according to my ego. Because what the 1st amendment at the most says that federal dollars will not go towards any religious causes. There is nothing there saying i can't wear a cross, or that i can't put up a picture of jesus in my office at the dmv, or that i can't pray inside a room at the welfare department or read the bible inside a court room (none of which i actually work at... I am a student). These actions are not LAWS, i am not forced to put up/do such actions and should not be forced to stop such actions. I am not forcing people at the office to be christians/jewish/muslim either. If they see a picture of Jesus and think there is some sort of pressure to turn into a Christian, then that is just very unfortunate that their brain is wired in such a funny way.

And you got to admit... there is no actual separation of church and state in the US Constitution nor the Federalist papers...

 

[russ_watters]

Again, SOS, you're mixing two (three, really...) separate issues: separation of church and state and freedom of speech (and free exercise) are different issues. Endorsing a candidate from the pulpit is a freedom of speech issue, not a freedom of religion or separation of church and state issue. Replace the church in your example with any other non-profit organization (say, the NAACP, which was investigated last year for the same thing...) and the issue and outcome are the same.

 

[russ_watters]

SOS, none of your opening post, except the last sentence addresses the issue at all. Though its not a bad summary of the establishment clause, it doesn't discuss at all the actual reason politicizing from the pulpit is illegal. If all you base this on is your perception (from the last paragraph) that others don't understand the issue, then all we can really do in this thread is to make sure you understand the issue - and also offer me up as an example of a type of person who *might* wear such a t-shirt (I'm not a slogan person though...). Otherwise, there really isn't anything to discuss.

First, the 1st Amendment:

The 1st Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

...contains 3 separate clauses semi-relevant here. They are:

The Establishment Clause: This clause prevents the Federal Government (and via the 14th amendment, the state governments) from establishing a state religion or, more generally, from endorsing/supporting (or, conversely, punishing) any specific religion in any way over any other. This clause is what is being referred to when talking about "separation of church and state".

The Free Exercise Clause: This clause is the "freedom of religion" clause. Its what guarantees us the right to worship any religion we choose (or none at all).

The Free Speech Clause: Self evident. Caveat: depending on the wording of your murder threat t-shirt in the other thread, it may be considered an overt threat, and such threats are not protected free speech.

Some discussion of these clauses can be found HERE.

HERE is a reference to the NAACP example I gave in my previous post. Strangely, news articles don't seem to explain the issue (should I be surprised?), but it is discussed in numberous BLOGS. The issue is freedom of speech.

I've stated this in another thread - The intent of separation of church and state is to provide freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

"Freedom from religion" is actually a relatively new concept that scholars don't generally accept as being intended by the founders. But the USSC (for 30 years or so) is currently making decisions that way, so it is - de facto - the way it is.

SOS, some of your other allegations (block voting), I won't comment on unless you can substantiate them.

Now, me: I'm a christian who is barely hanging on to christianity. I'll probably go to church on Easter, and the last time I went was Christmas. But I say "God bless you" when people sneeze and if there is a God, I hope he blesses everything that's important to me, including my country. I certainly hope he would approve of the US - its only natural for a religious person to seek approval for everything important in their lives, just as a child seeks approval from their parents for everything important in their lives. I don't own any t-shirt with any slogan, but I like the song, so still - I am an example that directly contradicts your position. I am an ardent defender of separation of church and state (see below).

Now, that said, there are religious people who would do away with separation of church and state (my boss), but you cannot identify which is which via the t-shirt they are wearing.

And you got to admit... there is no actual separation of church and state in the US Constitution nor the Federalist papers...

Not correct, as discussed above. Though the founders didn't originate the phrase, the phrase was invented (not really sure by who) to paraphrase the establishment clause. Let's not side-track this discussion with an irrelevancy: even if you don't like the words "separation of church and state", you still need to deal with the establishment clause.

 

[Dayle Record]

So now its illegal for a private organization to contribute money to a presidential campaign fund? Wow, you certainly are a tyrant.

The rules have changed regarding how much anyone can donate, and how they may donate.

And anyone whos studied history knows there's no such thing as a separation of church and state.

The founders of this nation, really tried to get this one right, after escaping state mandated religion, in Europe, they wanted no part of it here.


How you people turned this into "no person can show off any religious symbols in public" is absolutely beyond me.

We didn't turn it into that, The Government may not show preference to one religion, over another, and may not officially display religious symbols, implying a defacto state religion.


You are decieving people when you say it took 150 years for mentions of God to get on our currency when in fact, a standard system of currency took decades to create after our nation was founded.

No, no deception, the fifties was hard on civil rights, and the constitution, in general. The erosion of our personal rights got a kick start in the fifties, with the outlawing and demonization of many systems of belief, and social dialogue.

You've pretty much said all private citizens need to refrain from showing any religious promotion in their daily lives.

No, he pretty much, didn't say that.

That is equivalent to telling anti-war demonstrators or anti-tobacco demonstrators or anti-abortion demonstrators that they should not be allowed to protest in public.

Those rights are being severely curtailed, as new crowd control weapons, designed to inflict harmless but excruciating pain, and some so poorly tested as to be possibly quite harmful, are paraded at Defense trade shows, and make the news. Then there is the absolute curtailment, as was witnessed at the time of the political conventions last year.


I find it funny that you seemingly somehow feel weakened by a flag saying "God bless America" or appauled by it yet i doubt you'd feel appauled by a demonstration on some street corner.

I don't find your projections funny at all, but in a few years, you might become an adept spin master, but for now, it is easy to dissect this. I don't understand your sense of humor, I will admit that, but that only.


Conversely if you showed your support of atheism through some symbol or went around telling people to be atheists, that's perfectly alright. That right is protected by teh Constitution. You can worship ro not worship whatever the hell you want to or not; that right is protected by the Constitution and was its original intent.

[I]The intent of the constitution, was that religion is a private matter, in the eyes of government, and the United States will never have a religion, nor discriminate for or against religion.

Also, what many anti-religious people can never seem to admit is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." means absolutely what it says it means. no LAW LAW LAW. No piece of paper can go through Congress and be signed by the President of the United States that promotes or protests against a religion/belief.

What many religious people can never seem to admit, is that being non-religious is not being anti-religious, and that protecting our religious or non religious rights, is not anti-religious or anti-athiest. Yet our nation is in the middle of the biggest anti-religious push, ever in the pursuit of Muslim men. They way they have it set up now, one Muslim male picked up and terrorized by interrogators, can say anything against any other Muslim male, and that man can be picked up anywhere, and taken anywhere on this earth, and treated anyway interrogators in that setting feel. So, any Muslim male is in danger in this nation, regardless of his guilt or innocence, simply that he is Muslim, makes him suspect. This is gross religious discrimination, and it is happening now. When that man, or woman, goes to court, and a federal judge, proudly displays his Cross in chambers, or his Star of David, then captives of a different religion may have good information that their pleas will fall on highly prejudiced ears. If they went into an athiests court, it might fare much better for them.

The problem with the pledge of allegiance is that it is to a symbol, then it moves on to one nation, and then religious dominance theme, and then lastly it moves on to liberty, justice and freedom for all, after the religious dominance.

 

[russ_watters]

So now its illegal for a private organization to contribute money to a presidential campaign fund? Wow, you certainly are a tyrant.

Please reread, Dayle, that isn't the issue at all. Private has nothing to do with it: its about being non-profit.

And anyone whos studied history knows there's no such thing as a separation of church and state.

That's a pretty empty statement: Substantiate it. The phrase came from somewhere and is not an arbitrary one.

Dayle, where the rest of your post from? Some of it looks like quotes, but none of it appears in this thread.

http://www.christianlaw.org/separation_church_state.html is a surprisingly good discussion of the historical origin of "separation of church and state". I say surprising, because it is from a christian website, but it does not contradict the view generally accepted by both lawyers and historians. Incidentally, the phrase originated from Jefferson in 1802 and the context is quite speicific - he applies the phrase to the 1st amendment directly, using it in the same sentence as he quotes the first amendment:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Sorry guys, that's a pretty straightforward historical fact.

 

[Dayle Record]

My comments are bold and italicized, the rest of the comments are are post number two of the thread, just dissected and commented upon. If it helps you differentiate, my stuff is spell-checked.

 

[Moonbear]

I know these people--they tell me their beliefs--they have signs on their office doors that read: God Bless America across the American flag. I drive a lot as a part of my job, but still, I challenge you to start looking around, and like me, you may notice the increasing amount of patriotic symbolism along with religious symbolism. There's a movement in our country to remove separation of church and state, and it has been growing stronger and stronger. If you don't want to believe it, don't believe it.

The entire premise of the argument does not support this conclusion. Mixing of patriotic and religious symbolism, as long as it is not state-sponsored (in other words, you're not being handed a t-shirt as you enter a courthouse, and your Congressional representatives haven't mailed them to you), is fully within the rights of the individual to express his/her religious views within the context of freedom of speech.

While I do not disagree that there are people who would like to blur the separation of church and state, that people are choosing to display symbols mixing patriotic and religious symbolism is not de facto evidence that they are one of the people who wishes to blur those lines. That you have some friends who claim that is their intent cannot be generalized to the entire population. There are a lot of people in the country who share similar religious beliefs, and thus might choose to display those symbols. The increasing display of these signs and symbols is not because of a movement to blur the distinction of church and state, but because there has been a flurry of people who have been reminded of their patriotism since 9/11 or who have jumped on the patriotism bandwagon. There has been an increase in display of patriotic symbols without religious symbols too. As long as they are being displayed on their own private property or carried on their person, it is their right to do so.

 

[russ_watters]

My comments are bold and italicized, the rest of the comments are are post number two of the thread, just dissected and commented upon. If it helps you differentiate, my stuff is spell-checked.

Sorry, misunderstood - it helps if you actually set it off with quotes and cite the person's name.

 

[SOS2008]

With regard to separation of church and state versus different variables involved in freedom of speech, I feel I discussed this to exhaustion in the previous thread.

As for any correlation between religious/patriotic propaganda and separation of church and state movements, I've reiterated that this is a personal belief again in the original post of this thread as follows:

I know these people--they tell me their beliefs--they have signs on their office doors that read: God Bless America across the American flag. I drive a lot as a part of my job, but still, I challenge you to start looking around, and like me, you may notice the increasing amount of patriotic symbolism along with religious symbolism. There's a movement in our country to remove separation of church and state, and it has been growing stronger and stronger. If you don't want to believe it, don't believe it.

It is true that this is not a scientifically-controlled study, however I know first hand that people, including my own very religious and large family, believe the U.S. is a Christian nation and as such there should be no separation of church and state. I have made this clear, and would like to know if/how you can prove there is no correlation between the propaganda and desire to remove separation of church and state.

In any event, the horse has been beaten to death on all these points and it's become ridiculous.

 

[russ_watters]

It is true that this is not a scientifically-controlled study, however I know first hand that people, including my own very religious and large family, believe the U.S. is a Christian nation and as such there should be no separation of church and state. I have made this clear, and would like to know if/how you can prove there is no correlation between the propaganda and desire to remove separation of church and state.

What propaganda? All I can say is that I have no more or less evidence than you do - but I'd just point out that if this were a major issue (wanting to scrap the establishment clause), you'd expect to see religious leaders trying to make it a major issue. And the fact is, there is no such movement.

In any case, I agree: you have your perception and there really isn't anything to discuss in it.

 

[cronxeh]

Personally I don't want to see the President of my country publically saying anything religious, supporting anyone religion or even mentioning word 'god' in any of his speeches. It is ignorant of other people's absence of believes, and nothing more but a political plea for support of religious nutjobs in this country.

The last 2 elections were a sham and I'm ashamed to have been sitting there on election night and waiting for results to come in - as I look at myself from side now upon these times I realize how stupid this whole thing was and how fooled we got, once again

 

[arildno]

In Norway, we have a state religion, which means (among other things) that the bishops are appointed by the government.

We have had a raging debate over the appointment of the new bishop for Oslo :
The previous (extremely popular) bishop (a former top politician for the Agrarian Party) was a staunch supporter of gay rights, and the Christian Conservatives (led by our priest, the prime minister) were determined to appoint a "conservative" bishop.
(It was considered scandalous that he has opposed the ordination of gay priests who were openly living in a same-sex relationship)
By threatening to leave the ruling coalition, the C.C's trumped their candidate through..

Well, this was rather off-topic, but I thought the whole process rather entertaining..

 

[SOS2008]

What propaganda? All I can say is that I have no more or less evidence than you do - but I'd just point out that if this were a major issue (wanting to scrap the establishment clause), you'd expect to see religious leaders trying to make it a major issue. And the fact is, there is no such movement.

I used the word propaganda per the Webster definition: "any widespread promotion of particular ideas, doctrines, etc." in that I believe people who support removal of separation of church and state (or who may be well-intentioned but sadly uninformed) are the same people who display "God Bless America" stickers etc., (and I think you know some of these people too). The information you added is very good--thank you--and I wouldn't mind borrowing some of your "engineer qualities."

With regard to the establishment clause, I'm not sure why religious leaders would need to try to scrap this--why not just try to remove separation of church and state by demanding creation be taught in schools, and to have the Ten Commandments displayed on state capital grounds, etc. as they are doing? Religious leaders are fighting the IRS rules, and as far as checks and balances and current efforts by Frist, et al, to try to change the senate rule regarding "filibuster" opposition, thus clearing a path to tamper with the Judicial branch for religious purposes, how can you say there is no movement?

 

[russ_watters]

With regard to the establishment clause, I'm not sure why religious leaders would need to try to scrap this--why not just try to remove separation of church and state by demanding creation be taught in schools, and to have the Ten Commandments displayed on state capital grounds, etc. as they are doing? Religious leaders are fighting the IRS rules, and as far as checks and balances and current efforts by Frist, et al, to try to change the senate rule regarding "filibuster" opposition, thus clearing a path to tamper with the Judicial branch for religious purposes, how can you say there is no movement?

Those things make the newspapers, but isn't that an indication of how widespread of an issue it is not? Plane crashes are big news while car accidents are not, yet a thousand times more people die in car accidents - same reason applies. There have been perhaps a dozen school districts to make an issue out of creationism in the past decade - a dozen out of what, a hundred thousand? I don't consider that widespread, and there certainly isn't any coordination between those districts: its just a handful of nuts who happened to get elected to the school board.

 

[Dayle Record]

Creationist pamphlets at the Grand Canyon, sold by the US Forest Service... handful of nuts got elected to national office. A handful of nuts a day, is a good practice to prevent cardiac disease, its no way to run a country. Wacka wacka wacka.

 

[SOS2008]

So there's nothing unusual going on. No Big Brother kind of things, no fundamentalist movement, nothing like that. Here's what I posted in the Terri Shiavo thread:

But that the President himself, along with Congress intervened in an “extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation early Monday aimed at keeping her alive” is appalling beyond my comprehension. This man has never understood the role of presidency and leader of the free world. I can’t wait for his last term to be ended.

In the meantime, I applaud this federal judge--the very check and balance Bush and Republicans would like to be rid of in their effort to change the historical senate rule allowing filibuster opposition. These people (Bush, Frist, etc.) are determined to remove any right, representation, or iota of democracy so they can turn this country into Jesusland.

Beginning with the war in Iraq, to the Patriot Act, to the religious right-wing agenda: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength." –The three slogans engraved in the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's book "1984." - Who wants to wait and find out who's right or wrong about a movement?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see a connection between the Patriot act, Terry Schaivo, or the Iraq war and the establishment claue. Please explain.

 

[Informal Logic]

I don't see a connection between the Patriot act, Terry Schaivo, or the Iraq war and the establishment claue. Please explain.

Since I have this in my signature, I'd say the war in Iraq = "War is Peace," things like the Patriot Act = "Freedom Is Slavery," and fundamentalism = "Ignorance Is Strength."

 

[russ_watters]

Since I have this in my signature, I'd say the war in Iraq = "War is Peace," things like the Patriot Act = "Freedom Is Slavery," and fundamentalism = "Ignorance Is Strength."

Sooooooo... how is that relevant to the establishment clause?

...and not that its relevant, but have you read "1984"? Is is a criticism of right or left totalitarianism...? (HINT)

 

[Artman]

Personally I don't want to see the President of my country publically saying anything religious, supporting anyone religion or even mentioning word 'god' in any of his speeches. It is ignorant of other people's absence of believes, and nothing more but a political plea for support of religious nutjobs in this country.

Clinton was a womanizer, who was nearly impeached for his improprieties, but that's okay I guess, so long as he didn't mention God in his speeches, right?

I don't want our president publicly supporting anyone religion either, but I can overlook his mentioning God in his speeches, it is his right to freedom of speech.

 

[SOS2008]

Russ, if I remember correctly, you've stated there is no "separation of church and state movement" in this country, thus I point to the most recent illustration of this--Bush's intervention in the individual rights of Terri Shiavo (i.e., Big Brother) on the basis of religious belief (the involvement of the executive branch and congress, which therefore is contrary to separation of church and state), and then made reference to efforts to remove checks and balances (the judicial branch), because all these things are elements of totalitarianism (i.e., defined as "one political group maintains complete control") and "1984" which is about Big Brother. I don't know why you've brought the establishment clause into this--no one mentions it in these recent posts.

 

[Kerrie]

Ironic thing is, the general Republican belief is less government needs to be involved with individual rights. Clearly, Bush's intervention in the Terry Schiavo case doesn't represent this. What is truly the modern Republican way?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, if I remember correctly, you've stated there is no "separation of church and state movement" in this country, thus I point to the most recent illustration of this--Bush's intervention in the individual rights of Terri Shiavo (i.e., Big Brother) on the basis of religious belief (the involvement of the executive branch and congress, which therefore is contrary to separation of church and state)...

Where in the law passed is there any mention of God or religion? Beyond that, the only way religion enters this is its in her parents' claim: and that's a free exercise clause issue, not an establishment clause issue. You haven't shown how Terri Schaivo's case is related to the establishment clause.

Furthermore, though it should be assumed that Bush gets his ideas on "right to life" largely from his religion, that is his right. Its only against the establishment clause if he passes a law specific to religion.

I don't know why you've brought the establishment clause into this--no one mentions it in these recent posts.

Its your thread! The thread is about the establishment clause! And you made the segue in post 19 talking about "the right-wing adjenda". I asked specifically what that had to do with this thread (a thread about the establishment clause), and that led us here. If you want to go on a tangential rant, just say so and I'll get out of the way. Or better yet, if you wanted this thread to be a general anti-right rant in the first place, you should have specified it in the OP.

Ironic thing is, the general Republican belief is less government needs to be involved with individual rights. Clearly, Bush's intervention in the Terry Schiavo case doesn't represent this. What is truly the modern Republican way?

Not quite. The government's primary purpose is to protect the fundamental individual rights. Bush thinks this is a "right to life" issue and that's fine (though he's wrong on how to go about protecting it). I will agree, however, that Bush (and the party) is further right than the average American Republican. I was greatly annoyed when the party torpedoed McCain's campaign 5 years ago.

 

[SOS2008]

Where in the law passed is there any mention of God or religion? Beyond that, the only way religion enters this is its in her parents' claim: and that's a free exercise clause issue, not an establishment clause issue. You haven't shown how Terri Schaivo's case is related to the establishment clause.

I was never relating this point to the establishment clause.

Furthermore, though it should be assumed that Bush gets his ideas on "right to life" largely from his religion, that is his right. Its only against the establishment clause if he passes a law specific to religion. Its your thread! The thread is about the establishment clause!

The original post of the thread is about many aspects of separation of church and state. The establishment clause is only one aspect of this topic.

And you made the segue in post 19 talking about "the right-wing agenda". I asked specifically what that had to do with this thread (a thread about the establishment clause), and that led us here. If you want to go on a tangential rant, just say so and I'll get out of the way. Or better yet, if you wanted this thread to be a general anti-right rant in the first place, you should have specified it in the OP.

This thread was an extension of earlier remarks in another thread, so this was brought back up--though it did deviate a bit, sorry, but I feel it is related.

I hear you about McCain--And yet he is still pulling the R-line currently on stage with Bush while doing his SS tour in the Southwest. I'm not sure whether I admire McCain for this or not.

 

[russ_watters]

IThe original post of the thread is about many aspects of separation of church and state. The establishment clause is only one aspect of this topic.

That is not correct. The establishment clause is separation of Church and state. See the Jefferson quote.

 

[Informal Logic]

In reading through various threads, it seems the point regarding the Bush regime and the obvious taking of sides = contrary to separation of church and state (favoring Christian belief over secular Americans and those of other religions). I don't see where this point has been ignored or needs to be debated further.

 

[russ_watters]

What you guys aren't getting is that separation of church and state does not mean he can't allow his religion to affect his policy/decisions - it just means he can't favor a specific religion with legislation. So apply this test to a law: ask yourself what specific religion does this law favor or suppess? If you can't answer it, then its not a separation of church and state issue.

MORE

The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

And the tests:

The Lemon test: This was defined in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971. 10 To be constitutional, a law must:
-have a secular purpose, and
-be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and
-not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.

The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.
The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accommodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion.

A simple set of criteria is that the government (and by extension public schools) may not:

-promote one religion or faith group over any other
-promote a religiously based life over a secularly based life
-promote a secularly based life over a religiously based life.

 

[loseyourname]

Jesus, Logic and SOS. No matter what decision any leader makes, he is being informed by some system of ethics. Whether that system is religious or secular, it is going to be a system that is not universally adopted by all American citizens. Criticizing Bush for making policy decisions based on his Christian ethics is no different from criticizing an atheist president for making policy decisions based on secular humanism. Both systems exclude the opinions of those who do not adhere to it. Russ has made it more than explicit that the constitution does not proscribe this (in fact, it cannot proscribe this unless it proscribes all action by elected officials).

 

[russ_watters]

Criticizing Bush for making policy decisions based on his Christian ethics is no different from criticizing an atheist president for making policy decisions based on secular humanism...(in fact, it cannot proscribe this unless it proscribes all action by elected officials).

Well, theoretically it could be a specifically athiest government, utterly devoid of religious ideas, right?? How you would get that from the words of the founders of the US, though, I dunno...

 

[SOS2008]

Okay guys. There's no problem in our country. There is no mixing of religion and politics in inappropriate ways. Bush and administration have not taken sides of any special interest groups that just so happen to be religious, specifically Christian. Christian votes didn't help Bush to be reelected. There is no increase of fundamentalism, and these fundamentalists don't have any agenda. We don't need to worry, and anyone who questions it is just being ridiculous. Let's all vote for Frist in 2008. I'm sure the path where all this is leading will work out just fine, and we will live happily ever after in the Christian Republic of the United States.:yuck:

 

[kat]

The type of governing body; that SOS seems to think is his inherent right...godless...has also been responsible for the most deaths of any other type of governing bodies in the world.
You seem to be of the mind that in a country where the overwhelming population professes to be Christian..that a president shouldn't have Christian votes helping him to be in office...what you're spouting is nonsense.

 

[russ_watters]

SOS, if you think there's a problem with too much religion in the US, fine (well, not fine - kat's point is a problem for that position), but that's not the same as separation of church and state.

I've given you the criterea by which you can easily prove a separation of church and state problem: find me a law that breaks one of those Constitutionality tests.