Basic First Ammendment question (March, abortion, Jesus, examples)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by citigirl

That is a pretty 'commanding' public response.

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having 'In God We Trust' on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why is the world catering to this 14% and isn't it time we fight back with everything we got?




Some sent me this in the mail and I agree 100%

I'm shocked to find myself agreeing with you but as long as there's no attempt to make "In God We Trust" refer to any one particular God I don't see why it should be an issue.

[citigirl]

Originally Posted by burdell

I'm shocked to find myself agreeing with you but as long as there's no attempt to make "In God We Trust" refer to any one particular God I don't see why it should be an issue.

Exactly. If it said Christian God, Morman God, Buddist God etc. that would be a problem but the majority of people since the beginning of man have looked to the heavens and believed in some surpreme being or God.

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by bily4

Jefferson tried to originally clarify or strengthen this principle, that is admittedly vague in the Constitution. Historians point to this letter he wrote as the focal point that sets the precedent for this principle.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I can see where the catch phrase comes from now, but isn't this letter in the context of Federal establishment of a mandated religious practice? The wall of separation refered to is the one the people have imposed upon congress prohibiting them from inacting any law with respect to religion. It does not indicate that the people are prohibited from religious expression, nor does it indicate that the states are bound by any such wall. In fact it expressely avoids contradicting the assertions made in the letter in which it is a response that stated that the states "and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state;".

None of this indicates that Jefferson desired congress to impose restriction of any type to religion, regardless of type of religion. It does indicate that the intent of the amendment was to create a wall to keep Federal government out of religion in totality.

Surely passing laws that restrict where people can express religious thought should be barred by that wall.

Originally Posted by bily4

I also think the obvious question to ask in reference to this topic as well is, are you referring to Christianity specifically in your argument? Or would you have no issue with people hanging up Jewish,Muslim, Buddhist, Wikken artifacts in Public and pushing their religious agendas where they see fit? If you were to allow one, I would think you would have to allow them all. I'm not sure that would be helpful to society.

I am referring to all groups that subscribe to a common belief system concerning a greater power or lack thereof. I include all of the groups you mention, plus all variations of atheists and any other groups that holds a common belief structure that meets with a common sense test of validity. I do not intend that a set test be devised, but rather that common sense can determine if the group is sincere in there belief and it is not intended purely as a method of scam, fraud, anarchy, disprution, etc. I think the definition is broad and should be so. I do not have to agree with the precepts of a religion, but if there is a body of believers that do, then it becomes a religion in my mind.

Since I believe that congress is prohibited from passing any law in this regard, it becomes the responsibility of the local community and it's elected leaders to determine what is appropriate for that community. If the state/county/parish/city/etc is of the opinion that they have sufficient funds to accommodate everyone, fine. If not, then they have to decide their priorities and guidelines. It is not a federal issue and cannot be influenced by the federal govt due to the wall of separation so described by Jefferson in his letter assuring the Danbury Baptists that they were in no danger of being controlled by the President or Congress.

There is no mandate to accommodate everyone with local governments actions, and this is often impossible with governmental obligations in matters other than religiously affiliated, so I do not see the imperative that if one is represented all must be represented. Perhaps not all wish to be represented on certain occasions. I am not certain that many Christian groups are pressing to have their icons present at a Ramadan celebration or a Passover meal. In any case, if the local community decided it wished to fund a foot bath in a publically owned facility for it's large Muslim constituency, I have no problem with that, as long as there are no laws in effect that prevent them from choosing to do something similar for their large Christian or Hindu constituents. If they decide they do not have the funds and these groups wish to pay for their own foot baths, or whatever and the community wishes to permit it in the public facility, that is even better in my opinion. If space is limited, then the local govt gets to decide who has the most right to it.

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by burdell

Do you also take "church and state are intertwined" to include religions that are practiced in temples, mosques, etc.? If so, who gets to choose which takes precedence in a govermental sense? If your statements not inclusive of all religions, why not?


I think the current interpretation works just fine.

I mean that church and state are intertwined because they both serve the people. Since it is the same people, both aspect of the peoples lives are served by mutually exclusive organizations for a common goal. The goal is the protection of the people. The government is to provide physical protection from foreign powers and to provide essential services that individuals are unable to provide without cooperation among the states. The church is to protect the people from spiritual dangers. This is obviously going to be defined differently by each religious group, but that is why the common government should be kept out of the religion business, so that like state and local government, the local religious charter can define it's own mandates.

I realize many feel that the local interpretation works fine, but I think that is because it serves their specific religious affiliation (secularism) at the expense of other religious affiliations. Many of the followers of secularism do not even realize their affiliation, but enjoy the benefits of the resulting laws. Like Christianity, secularism is not a cohesive religion and has many facets and variations. It is not clear cut or definitive. That is why my definition of religion is so broad as to not exclude those who belief system is that they don't believe in anything. If they truly believe that, then isn't that a belief?

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Because the Constitution covers the rights of every citizen. It is because of the Bill of Rights that it is just as wrong for a local or state government to support on particular religion as it is for the Federal government.

Even if the bill of rights and the letters from it authors specifically state that the State governments are not subject to it? The Constitution is the framework of the federal government, it is not a charter listing of individual rights. The Bill of Rights is a collection of amendments to the Constitution to govern it's mechanics so as not to infringe upon specific rights. It still relies on the state governments to define and protect unspecified rights of the people.

bily4 pointed out Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he responds to their concerns that the Federal governement might pass laws to establish a mandated state religion or to attack state laws in these areas. Jefferson assured them that this was not the case and expounded on the wall of separation that prevents congress from passing any laws in this area.

We have turned that around and are now pressing congress to do exactly what it was prohibited from doing. There has never been any such injunction against the state governments, but now we are asking congress to overturn state laws that are in conflict with federal laws respecting religion.

How did we get that mandate from documents that state congress shall pass no law and states laws shall not be infringed?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by johnrex62

I mean that church and state are intertwined because they both serve the people. Since it is the same people, both aspect of the peoples lives are served by mutually exclusive organizations for a common goal. The goal is the protection of the people. The government is to provide physical protection from foreign powers and to provide essential services that individuals are unable to provide without cooperation among the states. The church is to protect the people from spiritual dangers. This is obviously going to be defined differently by each religious group, but that is why the common government should be kept out of the religion business, so that like state and local government, the local religious charter can define it's own mandates.

I'm missing something here. You say "church and state are intertwined" yet also say "the common government should be kept out of the religion business"

Aren't those opposing views? What do you believe should be changed in the current government/religion relationship?

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by burdell

I'm missing something here. You say "church and state are intertwined" yet also say "the common government should be kept out of the religion business"

Aren't those opposing views? What do you believe should be changed in the current government/religion relationship?

I am not sure what you are missing. The intertwining is the responsibility to the people, not each other. When I state the common government, I mean the role of the federal government has nothing to do with running a religion or deciding which religion should be permitted to operate in the country. I do not thing government can effectively serve it's populace unless it also considers the populace's needs and desires. If one of those need or desires is a religion, then it must govern in such a manner that it does not hamper the desired religion.

I believe that the states are not prohibited from exercising contol over religions since that was not enjoined from their charter and the federal govt is enjoined from overturning the states laws. I would personally prefer that the state too were prohibited from restricting religious expression, but I am not aware of any provision in any state constitution that provides that. Perhaps someone else is aware of something, but until the state enacts such restraint on it's own power the fed is powerless in that respect.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by johnrex62

I am not sure what you are missing. The intertwining is the responsibility to the people, not each other. .

This is a highly personal viewpoint and I in no way mean any slur to anyone or their religion. I was raised RC, in my particular parish when I was a young noy, we had a priest who gave one the impression that the people were responsible for aiding the church, not the other way around. Probably what makes me perfectly willing to accept the status quo RE: this issue.

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by burdell

This is a highly personal viewpoint and I in no way mean any slur to anyone or their religion. I was raised RC, in my particular parish when I was a young noy, we had a priest who gave one the impression that the people were responsible for aiding the church, not the other way around. Probably what makes me perfectly willing to accept the status quo RE: this issue.

I think we may have hit on our difference. I do not view the church as a fixed organization or building. My view of the church is the fellowship of people. Your priest views the church as the institution rather than it's fellowship.

I do see the responsibility of the fellowship to the church, but I also see the church's responsibility to it's fellowship. It is not a one way street in either direction. If the Priest felt that the church had no responsibility to the members of the church, then I am sorry, but I feel he is a very poor example of a church leader. I am hoping that you misunderstood his message in this regard and he was only expounding on a specific duty to the church rather than a comprehensive relationship.

[Marlow]

We have turned that around and are now pressing congress to do exactly what it was prohibited from doing. There has never been any such injunction against the state governments, but now we are asking congress to overturn state laws that are in conflict with federal laws respecting religion.

How did we get that mandate from documents that state congress shall pass no law and states laws shall not be infringed?

The 14th Amendment applies the 1st Amendment to the states.