100 Dollars to....

[spurster]

Discuss religion in the classroom? Certainly, though if it were a specific high school course, there would a major battle over textbooks.

Promote religion in the classroom? No.

Of course, some nuts will think any discussion is promotion (similar to thinking that any discussion of sex in the classroom means promoting it).

And some nuts will think that only the majority religion should be discussed/displayed.

[smackdaddy11]

Fine, let me ask plain and simple. Are you for a Theocracy? And if so, which religion will take the leading role?

No. I'm for the people to have religion in their lives in places of the public square.

They should be able to use schools to meet.

There should be general prayer before school not refering ot any specific denomonation and even Athiests could agree with the messsage. (Using theier humanist docterine)

I believe historic religious symbols in our society should be preserved. (See Los Angeles County having to remove the cross from the county symbol yet the Pegan goddess on it can stay.)

I believe in a Christmas display in the town square with the manger scene. I also believe any other religion can have space for their celebrations.

I believe this country was founded on these values and I believe there should be no "National religion or church".

I believe athiests should not harassed due to their non belief.

I believe any religion that doesn't cause injury to others should be allowed to practice.



I'm not a religious extremist. I believe Bill Clinton should not have been impeached. He should of been tried for purgery after leaving office since his crime didn't "endanger the Nation".


I'm just a moderate who won't ignore or try to change this countrys history which has made it the best country ever to inhabit the earth. I want that preserved for my childrens, children.

[smackdaddy11]

Discuss religion in the classroom? Certainly, though if it were a specific high school course, there would a major battle over textbooks.

A California teacher was banned from discussing the Declaration of Independence because it referred to God.

Promote religion in the classroom? No.

Is discussing the symbols and the events in a religions year promoting it?

Of course, some nuts will think any discussion is promotion (similar to thinking that any discussion of sex in the classroom means promoting it).

See: ACLU

And some nuts will think that only the majority religion should be discussed/displayed.

See: Radical members of ALL religions.

I'm not against religious teachings in the classroom, just eliminating the one that our cons ution is based on.

[MannyIsGod]

hmm, so people who do not believe that a god exists must have to go through prayer ?

[Spurminator]

I think any group prayer in school is unnecessary. Children should not be punished for choosing to pray if it does not disrupt class, but there's no need for a school-wide prayer.

I think some schools have gone overboard in not alowing religious groups to meet after school, but anything between 7am and 3pm should be kept neutral and secular.

[MannyIsGod]

No. I'm for the people to have religion in their lives in places of the public square.

And they are in danger of losing this how?

[quote]
They should be able to use schools to meet.
[quote]

I don't want my tax dollars used in any way by any religions.

There should be general prayer before school not refering ot any specific denomonation and even Athiests could agree with the messsage. (Using theier humanist docterine)

oh, so now you're telling other people what types of prayer they could agree with. interesting. What about those who simply don't beliving in praying? Why can't a moment of silence where anyone can do what they damn well please suffice? Better yet, why does it have to be at school?

I believe historic religious symbols in our society should be preserved. (See Los Angeles County having to remove the cross from the county symbol yet the Pegan goddess on it can stay.)

I agree

I believe in a Christmas display in the town square with the manger scene. I also believe any other religion can have space for their celebrations.

Any religion can have space for their celebrations, on private not public land.

I believe this country was founded on these values and I believe there should be no "National religion or church".

I believe this country was also founded on the values of slavery, manifest destiny, and non equal rights.

I believe none of that has any bearing on what is right for society.

I believe athiests should not harassed due to their non belief.

nor should anyone be harrased out of any of their beliefs

I believe any religion that doesn't cause injury to others should be allowed to practice.

good,but this isn't the issue, nor is it in danger.

I'm not a religious extremist. I believe Bill Clinton should not have been impeached. He should of been tried for purgery after leaving office since his crime didn't "endanger the Nation".


I'm just a moderate who won't ignore or try to change this countrys history which has made it the best country ever to inhabit the earth. I want that preserved for my childrens, children.

fair enough, but religion still is a private matter and has no placeoutside of a historical and factual context in school.

[gophergeorge]

I'm not a religious extremist. I believe Bill Clinton should not have been impeached. He should of been tried for purgery after leaving office since his crime didn't "endanger the Nation".

What the does this have to do with High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

And please don't "hijack" this into a impeachment thread.... I'm a justa wonderin?

[JoeChalupa]

Churches, mosques and other places of worship are for prayer.

As for me I can pray at anytime and anyplace and nobody would be the wiser because I don't have to yell to the world that I'm praying because it is none of your business. Be humble in prayer is my motto.

What's the motto with you?

[smackdaddy11]

What the does this have to do with High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

And please don't "hijack" this into a impeachment thread.... I'm a justa wonderin?

Geez. Get off my back. You started this and still have your hundred.

Just wanted to show I'm not a religious zealot.

And they are in danger of losing this how?

Manger scene in the town square.

oh, so now you're telling other people what types of prayer they could agree with. interesting. What about those who simply don't beliving in praying? Why can't a moment of silence where anyone can do what they damn well please suffice? Better yet, why does it have to be at school?

If you don't believe in prayer, during the speech, I guess this is what causes "injury" to people, you can think about the chich with the big boobs. All you need to do is not speak during the positive message. I can go for a moment of silence. I believe a positive morning message would be better. Secularist are supposed to believe in Humanism. Humaism has positive messages.

Any religion can have space for their celebrations, on private not public land.

Above you say they have the ability for religion in the public square. Now you say only on private property.

I believe this country was also founded on the values of slavery, manifest destiny, and non equal rights. I believe none of that has any bearing on what is right for society.

Now, the individual right for whatever they want is exceeding the rights of what the majority want. What about their rights?

Yours is a secular society. Sorry, but the U.S.A. isn't one. Nothing wrong with one if that is what you want but don't change MY RIGHTS to a non secular one.

good,but this isn't the issue, nor is it in danger

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is in danger. The problem is you won't see it till 30 years from now. Go look at the demographic issues facing Europe. It will be Islam East in a short time. If you think that isn't a threat to the American way of life, you need to get your head out of the sand.

fair enough, but religion still is a private matter and has no placeoutside of a historical and factual context in school.

You do realize Historical and Factual is being banned also. I already showed where Islam gets the ability but the U.S. Cons ution is not allowed. The ACLU, who has gotten the country into this mess is continuing the barrage. Somewhere in the middle most people meet. The ACLU is as far left as it gets. There are new groups of lawyers who are starting to attack the ACLU. I hope they are sucessful.

[FredFlash]

Dear Smackdaddy11:

It is grossly misleading to imply that the Separation of Church and State was developed in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson's famous 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists was preceded by over two hundred and fifty years of writings regarding the Separation between Church and State.

Elisha Williams was preaching the Separation of Church and State in New England back in 1774 as the "Right of Private Judgment in Matters of Religion." Founding Father Samuel Stillman was advocating for it in 1779 as “the Line Between the Things that Belong to Caesar, and Those Things that Belong to God.”

Thomas Jefferson was not even the first writer to draw on the idea of “separation” or the notion of a “wall” to designate, illustrate or explain the legal concept of no civil-temporal-government power over the duty which we owe to the Creator. Thomas Jefferson in all likelihood borrowed the "wall of separation" phrase from James Burgh.

James Burgh

James Burgh (1714-1775) was radical Commonwealth Whig who was one of Britain's foremost spokesman for political reform whose writings influenced political thought in revolutionary America. Burgh brought to his writings a dissenter's zeal for religious toleration and a distrust of established churches. Indeed, his antipathy toward ecclesiastical establishments was a logical extension of his staunch defense of religious toleration.

Burgh thought religion was a matter between God and one's conscience; and he contended that two citizens with different religious views are "both equally fit for being employed, in the service of our country." He alerted his audience to the potential crippling influences of established churches. Danger existed, he warned, in "a church's getting too much power into her hands, and turning religion into a mere state-engine."

Therefore, in his work Crito (1766, 1767), Burgh proposed building "an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil." "an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil." He dismissed the conventional argument that the public administration of the church was necessary to preserve its salutary influence in society.
"I will fairly tell you what will be the consequences of your setting up such a mixed-mungrel-spiritual-temporal-secular-ecclesiastical establishment. You will make the dispensers of religion de able and odious to all men of sense, and will destroy the spirituality, in which consists the: whole value, of religion. . . . Shew yourselves superior to all these follies and knaveries. Put into the hands of the people the clerical emoluments; and let them give them to whom they will; choosing their public teachers, and maintaining them decently, but moderately, as becomes their spiritual character. We have in our times a proof from the conduct of some among us, in respect of the appointment of their public administrators of religion, that such a scheme will answer all the necessary purposes, and prevent infinite corruption;--ecclesiastical corruption; the most odious of all corruption.
Build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil. Do not send a graceless officer, reeking from the anus of his trull, to the performance of a holy rite of religion, as a test for his holding the command of a regiment. To profane, in such a manner, a religion, which you pretend to reverence, is an impiety sufficient to bring down upon your heads, the roof of the sacred building you thus defile."

Samuel Stillman

One of the founding fathers was a Baptist minister named Samuel Stillman. He voted in favor of giving legal effect to the U. S. Cons ution as a delegate to the 1788 Convention of the Commonwealth Of Massachusetts on the Adoption of the Federal Cons ution. Stillman had preached, since 1779, the necessity for a line between the things that belong to Caesar, and those things that belong to God. He maintained that the government ought not in any manner to be involved in the salvation of souls and that it had no authority to establish our sentiments in religion or the manner in which we would express them.

The authority for Stillman’s principle of no government authority over religious matters was the Savior’s directive to ”Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.” It was “most evident” to Stillman that the Lord was trying to teach us that there are some matters where the government has no authority.

Conclusion

It is misleading to imply that the Separation of Church and State was first developed or formulated in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. It was formulated in the early 1500’s and Thomas Jefferson was merely one of hundreds of individuals who advocated it.

FVF

[Yonivore]

Find were it says you can have a gun. Its not there either. The supreme court however has determined what is and is not cons utional. Try knowing something about the way our system of government works.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms..." isn't in the cons ution?

[Yonivore]

The cons ution is specifically about restrictions on government. The establishment clause is designed to prevent government from favoring one religion over another or from "establishing" a government religion. There's nothing that says a person can't express their religious beliefs...in any context, except in the context of their position with the government.

There is no separation of church and state, it's a protection of the people against undue religious influence of the government.

[clubalien]

shall establish no relgion part

guns are in there too

as will all disputes supreme court decideds.. and if they decided wrong then excutive power could theortically just not inforce heir rulling.. and if they enforce it people can kick the gov as example of france student protests happening know over a law change

[RobinsontoDuncan]

First it doesnt matter what Jefferson though because he never sat in on the cons utional convention, nor was he a federalist, and the first amendment clearly states that no religion will ever be established by congress--i.e. government can not introduce theology into a secular government.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

And yeah... I went to Law school

[Please_dont_ban_me]

I guess our defenition of "got his ass handed to him" vary.

[Chairman Kim]

Fine, let me ask plain and simple. Are you for a Theocracy? And if so, which religion will take the leading role?

My atheist theocracy in Pyongyang is working great.

[101A]

No. I'm for the people to have religion in their lives in places of the public square.

They should be able to use schools to meet.

There should be general prayer before school not refering ot any specific denomonation and even Athiests could agree with the messsage. (Using theier humanist docterine)

I believe historic religious symbols in our society should be preserved. (See Los Angeles County having to remove the cross from the county symbol yet the Pegan goddess on it can stay.)

I believe in a Christmas display in the town square with the manger scene. I also believe any other religion can have space for their celebrations.

I believe this country was founded on these values and I believe there should be no "National religion or church".

I believe athiests should not harassed due to their non belief.

I believe any religion that doesn't cause injury to others should be allowed to practice.



I'm not a religious extremist. I believe Bill Clinton should not have been impeached. He should of been tried for purgery after leaving office since his crime didn't "endanger the Nation".


I'm just a moderate who won't ignore or try to change this countrys history which has made it the best country ever to inhabit the earth. I want that preserved for my childrens, children.

Crazy radical fascist hate-filled A-Hole!

[Oh, Gee!!]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is kinda ambiguous. That's why the Supremes get paid the big bucks.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

sure as isnt ambigious, it clearly says that there will be no national religion.

[DarkReign]

^ it was an attempt at humor

[Oh, Gee!!]

sure as isnt ambigious, it clearly says that there will be no national religion.

It's ambigious as to what governmental actions cons ute establishment of religion. But you're a lawyer, so you know it all.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I never claimed to know it all. I do know that there is clearly a barrier between the church and the state firmly erected by the constiution and that barrier should not be molested.

I thought you for a seperation of church and state.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I never claimed to know it all. I do know that there is clearly a barrier between the church and the state firmly erected by the constiution and that barrier should not be molested.

I thought you for a seperation of church and state.

not saying I'm not a seperation of church and state kinda guy, but I do think some interpretation of the establishment clause is required given the limited language used by the framers.

[E20]

Wow, this forum is pretty fun to read.