There is much misunderstanding in our modern culture about the term, "separation of church and state." Rather than using it as it was originally intended, it has been twisted around to mean something completely different. George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Since our schools no longer teach anything except how to pass state certification tests, we have at least two generations who have little concept of history. It is my hope that this article will help to educate some so that a better understanding of this concept is brought into focus.
After Jamestown, America was founded by Puritans who sought freedom to worship in their own fashion. Seventeenth-century England had a single option: the official Church of England, the Anglican Church (Episcopal in the U.S.). The Anglican Church was basically a copy of the Roman Catholic Church that it was started by Henry VIII when Rome would not allow him to annul his marriage to Catherine so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. Rome refused and so Henry split from the Catholic Church & reorganized the existing structure within England. Equally important was that the Pilgrims were more in line with the Reformation movement started by Martin Luther some 170 years prior.
Since the Founding Fathers lived in the pre-Modernist age, belief in God in one form or another was the prevalent view. In reviewing their beliefs, we find that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, noted deists and practicitng Unitarians, were the minority among an overwhelming number of Christians. They were still held under English law and were painfully aware of that. Since more than half (55%) of the Founding Fathers were Anglicans themselves (see below) it was extremely important to them that the U.S. not establish an official government religion. This is where the “separation of church and state” comes in. But it still did not mean the abolition of religion.
This phrase comes from a letter written by then-President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association. The DBA had written to President Jefferson regarding their fear that the Anglicans in Connecticut would overrun the Baptists, forcing them to return to the original situation their forefathers had faced in England. Jefferson, who as I noted before was a Unitarian, responded by stating that the First Amendment had placed a “wall of separation between church and state.” The Amendment referenced by Jefferson reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Note the exact wording of this. “…no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clearly states that the government will not establish an official religion. It also obviously says that every American has the Constitutionally-protected right to worship as (s)he sees fit. Period. Congress cannot legislate against religion. This is crystal clear to everyone except the American courts. The courts, unfortunately, have chosen to override the Constitutional rights of many Americans over the past fifty years. This has confused the American public so that most people today believe that we have freedom from religion, instead of freedom of religion.
What does this mean? Very simply it means that the Ten Commandments cannot be banned from public locations. One of the drawbacks of Santayana’s quote being so true is that most people don’t realize that every parliamentary (Congressional) government has its legal existence based on the Magna Charta, which is based on the Ten Commandments. We would have to completely rewrite the entire Constitution in order to remove the Ten Commandments from our government. Besides, we’d have to tear down the Supreme Court building, which as a bas-relief of Moses holding the Ten Commandments on its side. Christianity is a part of the U.S. government and always has been. And God willing, always will be.
It also means that Christmas (not "holiday" or "family") trees and manger scenes cannot be banned from public property. It means that Bibles can be on the shelves of public school libraries. It means that no one can be barred for expressing his/her faith in a public forum. All of these actions are not only protected by the first clause of the Amendment but also under this phrase: "...or abridging the freedom of speech..." There are limits to free speech, such as yelling FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and so there are limits to what can be expressed publicly based on public decency standards (do we still have those?), but Christain views are not among the beliefs that can be banned. They are Constitutionally protected. And to quote another famously Christain President who used his faith to guide him through a time of war, I pray that the country "of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth."*2
I am certain that as long as we maintain the Constitution this will not be a concern.
*1 Religious Affiliation of our Founding Fathers:
Affiliation Number Percentage
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204
*2 Abraham Lincoln, excerpted from the Gettysburg Address
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 212
Glen - no doubt about it.
Sorry. I see that you're quite passionate about this, and that you've done a considerable amount of work on this, but your simply incorrect. The constitution absolutely DOES give us all freedom FROM religion as much as it offers freedom OF religion.
Every citizen is free to practice whatever religion they wish to practice, so long as it does not harm others or violate the laws of the land, but they must do so within the confines of their own homes or their places of worship. Nobody has EVER attempted to infringe upon that right within this country. It is only when religious zealots attempt to force their religious beliefs upon others, in the public domain, that the courts rightfully step in to see to it that the constitution is upheld.
One question for you, sir. Would you feel the same way as you indicate in this well-thought, well-crafted article if you and your children were exposed to radical Islam or Satan worship on a daily basis, because you could not avoid either going to school, court, city hall, or any other public building? If it were images of Satan that greeted you every morning on your way to work instead of the baby Jesus in a manger, would you feel so strongly that your opinion should be the law of the land?
That is the truest test of all. If you could honestly admit that you would feel completely comfortable having other religious beliefs shoved down your and your family's throats at every corner, including religious beliefs that you find repugnant, then you may have a point of argument.
However, you must realize, whether you wish to or not, that there are many millions of people in this country who are NOT "Christian," and who do NOT appreciate being forced to succumb to Christianity at every turn. Believe it or not, this nation has members of every religion on the planet, including some that I am quite certain you would NOT find appealing or be pleased to be forced into taking part in.
The intent of the constitution was not to see to it that your favorite flavor of religion, or mine, or Bin Laden's, or anyone else's be brought to the public forefront at every opportunity. The intent of the constitution was to allow you and everyone else in the nation practice whatever religion they saw fit, without offending or encrouching upon the rights and private beliefs of fellow citizens.
For some inexplicable reason, today's "Christians" simply can not fathom this ideal, and have taken it upon themselves to ramrod their beliefs onto every American, simply because they hold the mistaken belief that this was founded as a "Christian nation." It was not. It was intentionally founded as a purely secular nation, and we can all thank God, Allah, Budda, Muhammed, Abraham, or Satan for that.
http://nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php
You must realize that the grand wisdom of the founders in creating this nation was that they created a nation that protected not the majority, but the individual. That fact puts to rest your belief that this is a "Christian nation" based upon any sense of majority status.
Additionally, it should be noted that religious regimes always fail. Why? Because, they attempt to force society to live by a set of codes that simply do not work with a rational, advanced society, and in particular, a democratic society. Religious extremism results in mass death and suffering. Always has, always will. Remember that.
Here is the key words of this article:
"prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
So oftan this is used to shut up christians instead of giving them the American Freedoms that we all deserve, and that this country was founded upon. Christians should make a point to stand up for their rights.
Joe, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the US Supreme Court building is also decorated with images of Muhammad, Hammurabi, and Confucius among many others. Like the images of Moses and the Ten Commandments, they're there because of their association with law, not religion.
What you neglected to mention - and most articles do - is that many individual states DID have their own official religions, many clear up until the mid-1800s, and the federal government and the Constitution could not, nor would not step on the rights of the states to do that.
Take care.
There are a few minor points to the article that I disagree with. One of the appealing elements of Separation of Church and State which is part of Jefferson's underlying argument (his original letter was actually edited because it was too harsh) was England bashing. The King of England was also the Head of the Anglican Church. In his letter he not only put a distance between himself and the General (who had established a day of Thanksgiving; a "holy day" as it were) and with the King by saying that the President had no power to call for either holy days or fasting days because that is the province of the church and there was a wall of separation between the church and the state.
Those fine puritans, I should point out, shortly after the signing of the constitution refused to pass Adams freedom of religion clause for the Massachusetts constitution. State religions existed and were indeed possible under state constitutions for many years after the passing of the Bill of Rights, because Separation of Church and State applied only to the federal government.
Once again I have to state that separation of church and state means that the President isn't the Pope and the Pope isn't the President. It means that congress can't establish a single religion and require everyone to be a member. It doesn't mean that the government is officially atheist and that people must put check their faith with their coat when they enter a public space. It is not even the separation of religion and politics; that only happens because most religions like to be "non profit organizations" and there is a separation of "non profit" and politics.
Madison addressed this saying that one can not be trespassed aganist by having to hear a different opinion or religion just as I cannot be trespassed against for being exposed to anothers views or religion.
Jefferson himself wrote his famous letter to the baptists who had voted against him as an act of pandering for re-election. Even after advocating a wall of seperation in that letter he attended church services in the House chamber and even helped organize some of them.
Great article,
Thanks for the link Teresa.
Superman,
Your opinion does NOT trump the FACTS!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
When taxpayer dollars are used to pay for Christian decorations, while ignoring other faiths, that is an attempt to establish one religion as more important than others.
I have no problem with private companies decorating however they see fit. I have no problem with folks wishing me "Merry Christmas." I do have a problem when one religion is given more importance than others in government facilities. And this is the very type of action the founding fathers wished to avoid.
The fact is, the phrase "In God We Trust" was added to currency in the 1950's. The addition of "Under God" was added in the 1950's. These were not established by the founding fathers. They were added during the last century in an attempt to establish Christianity as the religion of the U.S., and it was done under the guise of separating us from the Communists.
The real issue is not that liberals are trying to protect people FROM religion. The issue is that Christians have this peculiar notion that while it is perfectly acceptable to expose other people's children to Christian ideas, it is not acceptable to expose their children to non-Christian ones.
If you were able to have nativity scenes in front of the courthouse for Christmas, would it be OK for me to have a maypole in from of the courthouse for the Spring Equinox? If the answer is no, you are simply being a hypocrite, and trying to find some weasel way of forcing your beliefs on everyone else while ignoring the beliefs of others.
The fact that the founding fathers themselves were Christian means very little. Some of the founding fathers were also slaveholders. I suppose you think that is an institution that should be re-established as well?
"The real issue is not that liberals are trying to protect people FROM religion. The issue is that Christians have this peculiar notion that while it is perfectly acceptable to expose other people's children to Christian ideas, it is not acceptable to expose their children to non-Christian ones." – Julie Ann
This is a big issue with me. Not the general beliefs or practice of Christianity, but the hypocracy of it. While I realize that there are a few open-minded Christians out there who will listen and not be offended by others views, there are MANY MANY more who will not. They do not care that we have a right to believe whatever we want and tell us that if we do not believe what they do then we are doomed to burn in hell for eternity. (A hell I might point out that not everyone actually believes exists!)
"
Yes, you can spread the word of God. You can preach until you run out of breath and your face turns purple but that does not mean that you INSIST. Provide people with the information if you want, it's up to them whether they toss it in the trash or read it. Whether they listen or turn away. It is not your MISSION to convert those who do not believe what you believe. And very often those of us who are NOT christian are made to feel like we do not have a choice whether we listen to it or not when it is shoved in our face every time we turn around.
I do face images of Satan do greet me every day as I drive down the road in the form f billboards advertising illicit sex, alcoholism and rampant paganism. Islam IS taught in schools - to the exclusion of Christianity today. I can walk into the library at my son's high school and find a copy of the Qur'an but not the Bible. There used to be a so-called "standard of decency" in every city/town/community - no more. Instead we have a standard of indecency where everything goes & everything is shoved down MY throat. I drive down the road and I hear music from the next car where every other word is cursing. I walk into a public place - a mall, a park, etc. - and I see half-naked people walking around using foul language and acting in ways toward each other in ways that used to evoke statements like "Get a room!" as recently as fifteen years ago. And the basic reason that I have to have that forced on my family and me is because God has been banned from the public view and the courts have taken away decent people's right to defend themselves. Because the "common good" is no more - it is "what I want is MY right - and f--- you if you don't like it." Because God is no longer allowed in public. Apparently that's what you stand for. Well, I stand for decency and caring and love for your fellow - not for f--- you because I want what I want. Unfortunately we have become such a selfish society driven by personal greed and pettiness that this is the result.
You are 100% correct and I don't dispute that other images are on the Supreme Court Building because of their associations with law. Having said that just cements my assertion that you cannot remove the Ten Commandments (or typical Judeo-Christian beliefs) from the public discourse for that very reason.
As far as not being a Christian nation, did you happen to look at the breakdown of the Founding Fathers' beliefs I included at the end of my article? I'd say it's fairly obvious where their views and beliefs lay. It is only modernists who are trying to rewrite history to suit their current beliefs that have twisted this is into something that it was not originally meant to be.
Thanks for pointing the fact that individual states chose to follow the English model of official state churches and fleshing that section out.
Actually that is not true coins from the early 1900s have it on them.
Nothing stops you from having a maypole or other pagan display on government property. Like Teresa I am old enough to remember the maypole being a part of festivities when I was a child. In fact, in this post-modern culture you would probably be encouraged to do so since it encourages you to "express your individuality," a little tidbit of our warped view of diversity that carries over into daily life. My children had been exposed to all of this with my own guidance so that they are capable of making their own choices and equipped to separate the truth from the false. Anyone who would hide their children from the permeation of worldly and satanic influence would have to live a hermit's existence in the country with no mass media available - cut off from the world. Whether I agree that it should be there or not has no bearing - because it already is. My point is that since all other alternative forms are available, then the exclusion of Christian symbols and activities cannot be Constitutionally barred.
As far as spending tax dollars on these displays, many have been mothballed because of the outrage against anything Christian being in the public view. The reason this is coming to a head is not because Christians want to exclude anyone - to a large degree it is the opposite. After years of being the primary (or only) representative religion in the public discourse Christianity has been unconstitutionally banned from the public view. As I stated in another article that sparked the thoughts that generated this article, representative government and democracy have been based on the "majority rules" idea for millenia - ever since its foundation in ancient society. But in our politically incorrect views where we attempt to assuage our collective guilt for years of discrimination we have abolished this view so hat we have forms of apartheid instead of democratic representation. How is that American? And how is that Constitutional? The basic fact is that it isn't - and liberals can try to whitewash that any way they wish. it doesn't change what is.
You're 100% correct in that it's not any Christian's mission to convert. That can and will only be done by the Holy Spirit. All we can do is offer the information. It is unfortunate that a handful of Christians (and while it may seem like more, it really is just a handful) do carry that to extremes. However, the opposite is much more prevalent. I have garbage shoved at me daily - and it's all protected by the part of the First Amendment that guarantees free speech. While I don't like the messgage, it is what it is. However, that freedom of speech applies to Christians - doubly so in the First Amendment. If you want to be fair, as you say, doesn't that make expression of religious views twice as protected Constitutionally (since it religious freedom and free speech appear once each in the First Amendment instead of a single time for free speech)?
Well, of course not - I was just making a point. But BOTH are protected. And hopefully your mind is open enough see that the argument that promotes stripping Christians of the same Constitutional rights you so thoroughly enjoy is just as ignorant.
And yes, we have freedom FROM religion, and we have freedom OF religion.
No, the United States isn't a theocracy, thanks. It is a nation with lots of Christian citizens, but it is not and never has been a "Christian nation". Want to talk about historical influences on the creation of our government? Fine, why don't you talk about Voltaire. But don't distort history to pretend that the United States was ever a Christian version of Iran or Saudi Arabia, no matter how much you'd prefer to delude yourself that it ever was.
P.S. Help a recent user out--how exactly did this make it to the front page here, again? Anything I should know about gather.com here?
You miss the whole point. Other religions, primarily paganism , ALREADY us your tax dollars and mine to display their beliefs on government land. Since that occurs (not if, since), equal time for the MAJORITY is guaranteed under the Constitution. Prayer in the public forum is also regularly denied even though it is CLEARLY covered in the First Amendment - not in one place but in two (freedom OF religion and freedom of speech).
"...prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - that means no one can Constitutionally stop Christians from free PUBLIC expression of faith. Nor did the Founding Fathers want to or intend to - they believed in common decency and common good rather than a minority who while about their specific wishes not being met.
Chronicling church and state in early America
I don't WANT a theocracy. But the free expression of faith is guaranteed under the First Amendment but is regularly blocked for Christians. How is it that freedom of religion & free speech applies to Islam, Judaism , even paganism - but not Christianity, the belief of the overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers and the specific religion they had in mind? That was the entire point of this.
As far as front page, I have no idea- first time it's happened to me in the 6 months I've been here & I have no clue as to what happened to get there.
Thank you for that background. I probably should have gone a little deeper when I first posted but wanted to leave this open for posts like yours and discussion based on these views. Thanks again.
thank god.
How is NOT having a public prayer before a football game impinging on your right to practice your religion. If you want to pray, have at it. How is NOT having the commandments in the courthouse cramping your religious style? Not running afoul of them does not guarantee that you won't break a law of the land; but you are still free to observe them to your heart's content. However, if someone has a different (or no) faith system, it could very likely seem to that person that the presence of all these faith symbols from a different religion would mean that they weren't going to be treated fairly.
It seems so common sense to me. The potential damage by one action so clearly outweighs the potential danger of the other.
Freedom of religion and free speech defiintely applies to Christianity, and in my opinion, there are far too many Christians out there who don't realize how much that already works and has worked in their favor. You mentioned Satanism earlier--do you see anyone out there putting up Satanic shrines on public gov't property, and expecting it to stay there without complaint because of their freedom of religion? How about Islamic, Jewish, or Pagan ones? Seen any giant menorahs outside of (or inside of!) a courthouse, lately?
How is it that so many Christians out there don't appreciate the vast freedoms they're already exercising, possibly well past the point of reason or religious tolerance, in the public square, but instead feel persecuted when another group tries to correct a gross and obvious--and sometimes relatively recent--disparity? For example, the plege of allegiance, which didn't have "under God" in it at all until the Knights of Columbus lobbied for it back in the 1950's. Note that it never said "under Allah" or "under Lucifer" etc., etc., and no one else ever felt the need to lobby for that--but how well do you think that would go over?
As for your post making it to the front page, congratulations are in order, I guess. :)
Since you have singled us out, kindly provide an instance where pagans have used public money to display our beliefs on government land........................... Seeing as how we only recently had to use the legal system to be allowed to display our religious symbol on the gravestones of those pagans and wiccans who have fought and died for this country!
It is as if we can only be one extreme or the other. That there is no middle ground.
My point in bringing up the fact that many states in the US had state supported churches well into the 19th century, was to illustrate that our current fascination with "The Separatation of Church and State" is something relatively new, and it is the result of a radical interpretation of the constitution by activists courts.
Beyond that, the existance of state-supported churches is a profound source of evidence to prove that church and state involvement did not lead to theocracy or state sanctioned religious persecution.
A thinking person would clearly see that in our day and age, secularism (a worldview to which I also subscribe) is the theology that is the most aggressively hostile to all other forms of religion.
WHAT?
No displays of satanic worship? Every Halloween you see devils, witches, etc displayed. While this practice has largely been adopted as as secular holiday, its origin in Samhain is intrinsically satanic - as were the bone fires (places of blood sacrifice) that are commonly practiced on high school campuses all the time. And note - I AM NOT ASKING THAT THEY BE BANNED. Islam? My son's high school library has a Qur'an in it but the Bible has been banned. Yes, I have seen menorahs & creches side-by-side - which is the correct action, in my opinion - but I have also seen lit-up signs on government property that say "Happy Hanukkah" and "Happy Holidays" but none that say "Merry Christmas" anymore.
It has pervaded the entire culture. I was chastised by a checkout employee for saying "Merry Christmas" when purchasing Christmas presents last year. She informed me that I could only say "Happy Holidays" inside their store and that the word Christmas was banned. I corrected her and was backed up by her manager - but had her manager agreed, I would have demanded my money back and gone CHRISTMAS shopping elsewhere. No, that is technically not on government property - but it is an example of how twisted the American public has become in trying to block the free exercise and free speech of Christians in all places. Whether she celebrated Christmas or not is beside the point - I speak freely with my Islamic associates about Ramadan and their beliefs, I exchange Hanukkah greetings with my Jewish friends and I leave my atheist friends (yes, friends) alone at this time of year. But that is MY CHOICE - not the government's no anyone else's If any of these people asked me to stop I would. But to say that an elderly Christian lady living in government-assisted housing can't have a small Christmas tree or decorations at her home is patently ridiculous. They didn't ban menorahs. They didn't ban witches or devils. They didn't ban anything else - just Christian decorations. How is that Constitutional? And while not technically establishing an official religion, it violates the Amendment by banning the free exercise.
Mentioning the Second Amendment borders on the inane. Does praying or talking to an atheist about Jesus equate with pointing a gun at them? Of course not.
You have got to be kidding.
It is not the religious who are the iconoclasts rampaging through the culture . It is the secularists.
As I stated many times, I am an atheist. But I am not threatened by anyone's religion and I understand the role of religion in society. Civilization DOES require social values, and the best way to pass these values is through religion.
That is what we call, a scientific fact.
I live in Texas. There is a maypole dance every spring at Pease Park (owned and operated by the City of Austin). I remember as a child maypoles were a standard part of spring festivals. So there is your evidence of paganism approved, allowed and placed on government land.
"WHY must they keep pushing...?"
Because we're being pushed off of places where we used to be and having our Constitutional rights usurped by others who take an attitude of anything but. Like spoiled children who are examining new-found freedom, America has rebelled against the very things that brought it greatness and replaced it with chaos.
Thank you so much for reasoned posts. All I have noted and point out is the dichotomy that all other religions (including NO religion) are permitted by government entities today with the single exception of Christianity. And to specifically say that any other religion has the right and opportunity to express itself publicly (including your mention of secularism) but not Christianity is unconstitutional.
When was the last time the government spent tax dollars on a Winter Solstice festival?
The problem is that you are classifying ANYTHING that does not adhere to your own view of Christianity as Satanic and Pagan.
I do face images of Satan do greet me every day as I drive down the road in the form f billboards advertising illicit sex, alcoholism and rampant paganism. Islam IS taught in schools - to the exclusion of Christianity today.
So alcoholism is in fact paganism? That is an insult, sir. I am a practicing pagan, and I take personal offense to your holier-than-though attitude that sex, violence, and alcoholism are the result of pagan thought. Or maybe you haven't noticed all of the "Christian" leaders who have fallen over the years due to sex, drugs, and such?
Oh, but I guess those good Christians wouldn't have succumbed to temptation if it wasn't for us evil pagans, right? How is it I, as a pagan, manage to stay sober, off drugs, and not foddle little kids or hire hookers. But so many Christian leaders can't do the same?
And I challenge you to provide evidence of ONE PUBLIC SCHOOL that is providing Islamic religious instruction...and not just explaining Islam from a historical context. It' easy to make a statement of fact. It's harder to provide real evidence of the statement.
"Intrinsicly Satanic?" Paganism and Satanism are two different things. Satanism is not even a belief in a real "satan"! True Satanists consider Satan a symbol of rebellion. Your idea of Satanism is grounded in horror movies and goth kids drawing pentagrams on their school books. The whole notion of "satanism" is in fact a Christian invention, used to demonize the cult of Diana and other pagan cults during the middle ages.
Your bigotry and ignorance show more with each post.
A secular government is is the best guarantee of freedom of religion we can have.
One of the longest standing principles of constitutional law is that the constitution takes precedence over state law. The First Amendment means, among other things, that federal law in the area of religion always takes precedence over state law. It also means that we can't, at any level of government, pass laws that favor any particular religion.
The US wasn't founded as a religious country. It was founded by people who believed that in order for religion and the country to flourish that it was important to separate the two. It doesn't mean that they were hostile toward religion. It does mean that they were hostile to the idea that government and religion should be mixed.
Keeping religious displays out of public buildings and keeping religious ceremonies out of government business has nothing to do with hostility toward religion. It has to do with preventing the state from favoring any religion over any other. Suppose that a Satanist group managed to gain control of the federal government. Would it be right to have pentagrams in public places?
The genius of the US is protecting the minority idea. As long as people are free to think and believe anything they want without fear of sanction, we have a free country. When one religion gets tacit or active endorsement by the state it diminishes everyone's religious freedom.
We need to have a government that gives no appearance of favoring any religion. I don't think it's a big sacrifice.
I never said that you don't have the right to believe as you will. We agree to disagree but because you disagree you want to take away my right to believe differently than you. Do what you want. I would pray that you would see differently, but it's not my place to convert you.
I have already pointed out the use of maypoles on public land.
You said you were pagan. Now you want to be satanic? Make up your mind.
As noted above, my son's high school library has a Qur'an in it but the Bible has been specifically banned by the local school district. That in and of itself smacks of hypocrisy and of government sponsorship of Islam and a direct violation of the First Amendment. either ALL is banned - or NONE is banned. But don't isolate Christianity as the ONLY one that is banned.
I never said that Christians didn't fall prey to the temptations of the world - I was asked about what influences I see and I responded. But the intent was that because of the anti-Christin bias in this country today and the post-modern view that anything goes, Christians are subjected to influences everywhere we turn and when we are bothered by it we are rightly told to turn away from it and choose not to participate. So I offer you the same option - if Christianity bothers you, turn away from it. But don't try to deny Christians the same Constitutional rights you enjoy.
I pray that your eyes would be opened to see a view other than your own.
I've seen religious groups intimidate government into endorsing their views and I don't believe it's in keeping with the principles that made the US great.
"...abridging the freedom of speech"
Pretty ironic and makes my point exactly.
Er. Did you just equate mostly Christian children going around wearing Halloween costumes begging adults for candy with a display of satanic worship? This is a spoof, right?
As I attempted to post earlier... the only way you'd actually see real, government-sanctioned support for only non-Christian symbols would be if Christians mistook those symbols for their own and used / re-appopriated them hundreds or thousands of years ago, as is the case with Halloween costumes, Easter eggs, Christmas trees, Isis and baby Horus as Mary and baby Jesus ("The Black Madonna"), etc., etc. But that isn't sanctioning the original beliefs mind you, nor does it count as worship -- no more than dressing up for a Redskins game would make you a Native American.
And indeed, if they're banning Christmas trees, then according to your above reasoning, they'd really be banning a Pagan decoration -- woo hoo, government discrimination against another "religion"! Anyhow, guys, continue on without me, this has gotten inane past the point of reasonable stupidity.
If you will read my posts you will see that I disagree with those views. You will see that I am simply asking that Christians be reinstated with the same rights everyone else has. It's just that as Greg pointed out , the growth of secularism as America's largest belief system as let to the mistaken view that Christian's rights are no longer valid or in place.
But we have constitutional rights that are limited in certain circumstances. I'm not talking about pointing the gun at all, but rather merely possessing one in certain circumstances is verboten.
The battle lines are always drawn in the wrong places in this battle.
Nothing prevents any Christian from worshipping as they desire, that should be the end of the arguments in a democratic Republic.
Nothing will destroy the Christian faith as quickly as the triumph of the Pharisees, when public prayer and public spaces debase the symbols and the meaning of Faith.
The separation of Church and State has been healthy for America and for religious vitality.
It is no surprise that the power of Faith actually declines as politicians succeed in introducing religious themes into public discourse.
Christians used to argue strenuously for the separation of Church and State, rightly fearing nay entanglement with the State.
Now, we have weaker, feebler Christians who covet political power and the sanction of the State to compensate for the anemic testimony of their lives and acts.
I think we will never resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction, the best we can do at a certain point is to leave others alone and to try to be less sure of our own absolute rightness.
Julie,
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976754849
Not only do we have religion trying to impose itself into government buildings, now they are trying to take on science. Its like a virus. We already tolerate the word God on our money, we tolerate it in the pledge, governments even put some decorations up for Christmas, religious citizens already get their way to a point just to make them happy. But you get an inch and you want a mile. Stop it already and just leave it in your homes and churches and your many religious clubs/organizations.
Okay, and now my prejudices are showing, but really that is what happens when the State cozies up to a religion and the religion copies back. Imagine Islam being the religion and maybe you will absorb my point.
That's not even close, though.
Christians do have the same rights everyone else has. I don't see what the complaint is. "Secularism" isn't a religion. It's more like the absence of religion. I don't think anyone with any sense wants to prevent people from worshiping as they choose. The idea of a secular government is so fundamental to the American way of life it's hard to understand how anyone can misunderstand it.
Government is inherently non-spiritual. It deals with very material concerns like safety and property. It makes no claim on anyone's spiritual life. I think it's a darned good thing that it doesn't.
One question that comes to my mind is "How does having the Ten Commandments on display in public buildings or dedicating space in public parks to Christian religious displays make the US a better place for all citizens?"
You BELIEVE that their personal religious beliefs determined their intent in wording the First Amendment. I believe that your table (of their denominations) helps prove the OPPOSITE of what you intended. (First off, your numbers don't add up.) But, since most of the Founding Fathers' denominations were those that were the official religion of one European nation or another, it would seem that they WANTED to start a different model. (Of course, other histories support that conclusion, too.)
I also think you were wise to LEAVE out that individual states had their own state-sponsored religions for a while after the Constitution. It was clear at the outset that it applied to the federal govt. It is also clear that it was later applied to the states... not by the courts, but by an Amendment to the United States Constitution! (Alabama later tried to argue that the 1st Am. didn't apply to it, a District Judge agreed, and the Supreme Court practically laughed in Alabama's - and the Dist. Ct. Judge's - face.)
Which leads in to my next point. You claim that our Supreme Court Justices are incredibly stupid, to not recognize what every other person sees as being "crystal clear." That is a RIDICULOUS claim! (Tho, it does fit in with the concept of "blind justice" and Lady Liberty with the blindfold.) Our S.C. Justices are some of the finest Constitutional and legal scholars in our country. They have to consider specific situations, interpret the Constitution and its historical context. Then, they decide the situation and come up with guidelines that mesh those together and serve for other similar (future) situations. They disagree and you are certainly free to side with the dissents in those contentious decisions; but, to claim that they don't know what the heck they're doing is just stupid. I would urge you to read the opinions on both sides of some of the key decisions... with an open mind.
By the way, you should be interested to know that we have had 110 Supreme Court Justices over the years. Not one has been an Atheist or Agnostic. None of them have claimed to be secularists. And, how many of them have been Christian? 103 of the 110! Before you try to argue that their decisions belie their stated religious affiliation, consider what that means for your argument about the religiosity of the Founding Fathers.
This is NOT a "Christian Nation", and was not intended to be such. No matter what the personal religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers were, they wanted this nation to be free of a national religion.
In a sort of James Frey way, sure.
You* as an indiviudal, unaffiliated with the court, no. You as an officer of the court, yes.
*in the generic, not the particular.
Your metaphor about James Frey is mixed. Nor am I a liar - I am not alone in my view nor are you.
If what you said were true about the personal vs. the official were true I never would have written this article. Unfortunately we have stripped away so many rights , especially those regarding Christian faith, that that line was long-ago blurred. There is no differentiation anymore. Since you apparently are among those who wish to blind teh public to this and maintain your own position it is not hard to understand why you cannot see this as obvious. I cannot wish you harm, nor do I want to. Instead I offer the greatest gift I was ever given - I pray that you will find the happiness, joy and peace of mind that all of us so desperately want for ourselves. Take care.
I strongly disagree.
Secularism is a worldview. A zietgiest. So is any religion.
I get a kick out of the recent trend from people (whom I otherwise admire) like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dwakins who are downright evangelical about their secularism and atheism. You listen to these guys preach and if you close your eye and focus only on the cadence of their words, you cannot tell the difference between them and a subway preacher.
They want you to BELIEVE what they BELIEVE.
Sure, they don't have a BOOK --- yet. And they do not have a temple -- yet. But nature abhores a vacumn -- and they soon will.
But what they do have, as sadly has too many religions in the past --- is a holy war. And they are waging it with a vengence.
***
Joe: Isn't that the definition of a "prophet"?!?! Yet, you are going to "profit" from those words?