Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to THERE HAS TO BE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE FOR TRUE FREEDOM
Janes
None of that proves anything though. It comes off a bit as whining there and trying to play the victim. It has nothing at all to do with the issue of the post itself though.
You have yet ot provide any logic to your case. Basically is there is not a separation of church and state, then right away the first amendment is violated. As soon as an kind of religious influences allowed to be part of national politics you get a Federally backed religion. The firs amendment can only be truly active with a separation of church and state. As far as I can figure you do not really understand what it is saying. It does not need to officially create a church in order to establish a federal religion or to prohibit freedom of religion. All it needs to do is show it favors one set of religious beliefs over another and the amendment is violated. That is what would happen if we did not have separation of church and state.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 29, 2005 at 8:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Debbie, some links for ya,
http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=210
http://www.lc.org/pressrelease/2005/nr062405.htm
http://www.lc.org/pressrelease/2005/nr061505.htm
http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=212
http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=373
http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=40
http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=57
http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=43
http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=45
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/newage.htm -- rather interesting web site on a different but slightly related topic.
I could "motor mouth" on, but suffice it to say, there are plenty more links available where these came from, as well as other organizations. I have only listed two main sources -- Liberty Counsel and American Center for Law and Justice.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on September 29, 2005 at 5:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Jane
I have never heard this claim before:
Time and time again Christian groups have been forbidden to use public schools after hours, even though the same schools have allowed other religious..... groups to meet
Can you provide some evidence of this. If its true then it isn't fair, you're right. I know non-religious groups are allowed to meet, which is not a violation, but to only allow certain religious groups?
Hello Kooka.
posted by
DebbieDowner
on September 28, 2005 at 5:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka, there's a huge difference!
The First Amendment doesn't allow for the ESTABLISHMENT of a state-church. That's miles away from ACTUAL and COMPLETE separation of church and state. There's a HUGE difference!
You are rather out of the loop if you think that Christianity is on equal footing compared with other religions in this country, at least in certain arenas. Time and time again Christian groups have been forbidden to use public schools after hours, even though the same schools have allowed other religious and non-religious groups to meet -- Wiccan, New Age, Jewish, Amnesty Intl, gays/lesbians groups, etc. Even the Supreme Court has stated that all groups, including religious, must be allowed to use public school facilities after school hours. And yet, consistently, multiple schools have attempted to specifically restrict Christian groups. So much for exercise of free speech -- also mandated in the first amendment.
Heck, there was even a kindergarten kid who was penalized for praying before eating her lunch.
Another example is the LBJ law stating that politics cannot be preached from pulpits. Clinton and Gore were notorious for filing suit through the IRS to penalize predominantly conservative Christian churches that spoke anything political from the pulpit. But that same law seemed to completely exempt them and other liberal supporters from expounding their political ideologies from church pulpits. Double standard, double standard, double standard.
I could go on, but I might as well write my own blog rather than hog space in yours. 
What many conveniently seem to forget is that the establishment clause mandates government NEUTRALITY, not EXCLUSION. And exclusion is what has been happening on a regular basis.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on September 28, 2005 at 4:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Janes
The first amendment makes it clear that there should be separation of church and state. It does not need to be spelled out to be there. Most of the active founding fathers did make mention of such ideas as being part of the reason for that amendment as I gave an example of here. Go on and figure out how for the first amendment to be active and there to be no separation of church and state. As soon and the church is able to influence the state we have a government based religion, because that religion is controlling the laws of the land and so that faith will be favored.
I see no signs at all of belief being removed from every aspect of life. No one could get away with that. Not I have already shown my defense many times as to why the government really should at no point display anything that might give the impression that they favor one faith over another, so any religious art such as the Ten Commandments should not be displayed on government property. The implication that the government favors one faith over another would be there and that violates that rights of the people.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 28, 2005 at 9:41 AM
| link to this | reply
First of all,
please keep in mind that Jefferson made these comments about separation of church and state in private papers. This is not an official part of the Constitution as so many of your liberal friends wish to believe. There's a huge difference!
Secondly, the first amendment, added in 1791, basically states that Congress shall not form a state church such as the Church of Scotland, Church of England or Church of Rome (which I believe is what the Catholic Church used to be called). Ironically, this amendement was added as a protection for Christianity. So many Christians had experienced persecution under British law, where the crown ruled the church or at times the church was in cahoots with the crown and if you did not believe what THEY taught, you were thrown into the dungeons, stretched on the rack and/or hung, drawn and quartered.
NOWHERE IS IT MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT THERE IS A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! All it says is that Congress cannot establish a religion. However, because a very vocal minority has blabbed on about the supposed separation of church and state being in the Constitution, people actually BELIEVE that it's in the Constitution. Not only that, but thanks to that tiresomely vocal minority, the rights and freedoms of speech of religious people has been suppressed -- in direct opposition to the second part of the first amendment.
Do I want a State supported/established church? No way in hell!!!! (Pardon my French.) I don't want some bureacratic church official mandating how I am to worship and which churches I can attend. China has an official State church and if you MUST attend church (instead of following the official party line of atheism), but don't attend the OFFICIAL STATE church, then you're persecuted, thrown in prison and (frequently) murdered. No thanks!
But at the same time I DO NOT APPRECIATE how the ACLU and Americans United and others of their persuasion are bending over backwards to completely remove the Church from all aspects of American life. That is wrong. That is a suppression of my First Amendment rights and that makes me MAD!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on September 27, 2005 at 7:01 PM
| link to this | reply