Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pardon me not not repeating all of the quotations. Each of these support the concept of freedom of religion for all religions and religious sects. I whole heartedly support this thinking and fully support your proposition that the 1st amendment is designed to protect that tolerance of religion.
I think that by singling out a particular religion and barring it from freedoms excercised by other religions is a poor way of following this ideal, however. The wall of separation has been exercised in ways to prohibit Christian use of public facilities while other groups still have access. Watchdog groups do not file lawsuits when native american shaman art is publically displayed, but catholic icons are forbidden in schools. Crucifixes are forbidden while Buddahs adorn vestibules. I don't have a problem with any of it being on display, but it seems that every time I hear about someone suing over these displays it is always based on the 1st amendment, and I just don't see the basis.
None of the quotes you supplied argue that religion should be isolated from public areas. The only commentary I have ever heard of that comes close is when congress refused to fund bibles on the basis that other groups would want bibles and congress did not want to set a precedent of buying materials for any religious group. Even this did not preclude non-financial support of religious groups and activities by congress.
Your points are well taken. I think however you will also read a healthy dose of skepticism by the Founding Fathers in their writings - concerning the dangers of allowing religion into government... and the possibility of tyranny and abuse resulting from this scenario, based on historical evidence of states motivated primarily by religious dogma. I think the overriding sentiment is that -yes any individual should be allowed to worship any religion they so choose in our country, but this should be kept private between them and their God.
I would think that by allowing religious symbols on public land that could be taken as a tacit support of that religion by the owners of that property, in this case the State.
And while you as an individual seem to be fine with any religion posting their symbology on public land, I can guarantee you that the majority of people that are arguing for Crosses to be allowed to be diplayed on the Public Square would be arguing just as strongly against Muslim or Jewish symbology to be posted there on the grounds it is not in keeping with our culture and is Anti-American.
Quick note: I'm old enough to remember prayer, Bible reading, etc., in public school. (Heck, I even remember the Pledge BEFORE "under God" was added!).I don't think any of us was harmed by that experience (and deep down inside, I don't think you think kids would be harmed, either). But we were exposed to the King James Bible and Jacobean English. It was beautiful. (It became the basis for my academic career.) It is the foundation of much of our literature and art. It is a unifying part of our Western heritage. Don't you think that we are shortchanging our children by telling them that that two thousand year history of aesthetic and moral inspiration is now somehow forbidden and off limits to them?
See? There's the problem. Before Bible study ended in public schools there was a big todo on whether they should read from the Old or New Testament. In my school we always used the Douay version which is different than King James. Now, what if some parents want readings from the Book of Mormon? Aesthtic and moral inspiration is still available for children in their churches and at home. Bible readings are out of place in public schools.
Personally neither Jacobean English or Latin did much for me. I don't remember when "under God" was put in the pledge but I do know that the pledge itself was written by a Socialist. And the phrase "with liberty and justice for all" was used as a sledge against the administration during the civil rights revolution.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,348 posts, read 54,470,554 times
Reputation: 40766
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Looks can be deceiving. Examine the history that surrounds the appearance of these words on our money. Ask what purpose they were intended to serve. Ask what purpose on earth they actually do serve...
Intent is difficult to determine. While the Treaury cites a letter to the Secretary from a Pennsylvania minister as stating "You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?" as being one of the factors of "In God We Trust" coming to be used on US money, do you believe we're supposed to take that as being exclusive to Christians and not acceptong of any other monotheists who trust in a deity which may generically be referred to as god?
I've always taken it to be more of an acknowledgement of the existence of a supernatural being than a reference to a specific rekigion's deity.
See? There's the problem. Before Bible study ended in public schools there was a big todo on whether they should read from the Old or New Testament. In my school we always used the Douay version which is different than King James. Now, what if some parents want readings from the Book of Mormon? Aesthtic and moral inspiration is still available for children in their churches and at home. Bible readings are out of place in public schools.
Personally neither Jacobean English or Latin did much for me. I don't remember when "under God" was put in the pledge but I do know that the pledge itself was written by a Socialist. And the phrase "with liberty and justice for all" was used as a sledge against the administration during the civil rights revolution.
I can appreciate your observations. But they do not change my feelings about the loveliness of Jacobean English, or its importance for all educated people. It is the business of schools to expose students to this seminal influence on our cultural heritage, not restrict their access.
Quick note: I'm old enough to remember prayer, Bible reading, etc., in public school. (Heck, I even remember the Pledge BEFORE "under God" was added!).I don't think any of us was harmed by that experience (and deep down inside, I don't think you think kids would be harmed, either). But we were exposed to the King James Bible and Jacobean English. It was beautiful. (It became the basis for my academic career.) It is the foundation of much of our literature and art. It is a unifying part of our Western heritage. Don't you think that we are shortchanging our children by telling them that that two thousand year history of aesthetic and moral inspiration is now somehow forbidden and off limits to them?
My daughter wouldn't be harmed by prayer in school because she's being raised Catholic. But she goes to school with Jews and Hindus, that I know of, and probably with the children of atheists as well. They might well be harmed if they were ridiculed for not praying or doing so in a manner that appeared weird to the other kids, or if they didn't want to celebrate Christmas. Why should any non-Christian's tax dollars go to support such an activity in public schools?
I'm sure that the Bible as literature and in history and art is still taught in school. I know that in the last couple of years an atheist who challenged a 10 Commandments monument at the Texas state capitol in Austin lost at the Supreme Court because they said it was part of our history. It is false to say or assume that there are no religious expressions allowed at all. Courts routinely recognize the cultural contributions of religion to society and allow expressions of it.
Your points are well taken. I think however you will also read a healthy dose of skepticism by the Founding Fathers in their writings - concerning the dangers of allowing religion into government... and the possibility of tyranny and abuse resulting from this scenario, based on historical evidence of states motivated primarily by religious dogma. I think the overriding sentiment is that -yes any individual should be allowed to worship any religion they so choose in our country, but this should be kept private between them and their God.
My readings of everything suggested to promote the idea that the authors were against religion in government speaks exactly the opposite to me. The authors were extremely wary of state being involved in religion, but nothing to indicate they wished religion out of state. I do not mean they wished a state run by religion, but rather they worked to prevent a religion run by the state. I have not seen anything that indicated they contemplated the church being able to take over the government unless the government initiated the marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
I would think that by allowing religious symbols on public land that could be taken as a tacit support of that religion by the owners of that property, in this case the State.
There are a multitude of symbology embedded in the architecture of nearly every governmental building, document, seal and crest in the world. I do not recall every hearing acqusations that any of them have endorsed religions based on these symbols. Many of these religions are ancient and are no longer recognizable by most citizenry, but are still religious symbols.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
And while you as an individual seem to be fine with any religion posting their symbology on public land, I can guarantee you that the majority of people that are arguing for Crosses to be allowed to be diplayed on the Public Square would be arguing just as strongly against Muslim or Jewish symbology to be posted there on the grounds it is not in keeping with our culture and is Anti-American.
I am sure you are correct. There are always misguided people and there will always be fair and open minded people to resist over zealousness. All things are evil when moderation is ignored.
Well, it's pretty obvious from the manner in which the 14th Amendment was applied during the lifetimes of those who wrote it and those who ratified it that the equal protection clause was not intended to outlaw "racial and sex discrimination." In fact, it probably wouldn't have been added to the Consitution at all if it had been so construed in the 1860s.
I have seen numerous posts here mentioning children and how by banning certain words or practices the government is in some way harming or atleast depriving children of some needed faith or information.
Whenever I see these post, I wonder why these children would be deprived of this information? Aren't they being given this religious training at home? If it is that important to parents then is it not their responsiblity and not the states/governments to see that their children are given the religious base that they need. If so why must they also receive it at school or in any other public place?
If you wish your child to be exposed to further religious information you can do what many do and send your child to a private school or to extra curricular activities that will give them the information you wish them to have.
These same people who want "Their" religion taught or displayed in public would strongly object (more likely be horrified and up in arms) to some other religions being given equal time. Let's admit that no matter what is done someone will complain.
It is unfortunate but true that many/most people are not as tolerant as they think they are.
Yes, I miss being able to celebrate christmas or halloween(yes I know Halloween isn't really religious but it has been banned because it offends) in schools or at other publicly run programs but we just have to take the good with the bad.
There is nothing to keep you from celebrating privately or with like minded friends.
As to the original post (if I can remember it at this point), we have likely gone over the edge in our interpretation of the amendment and what it is supposed to mean, but that is not surprising given that we have gone to extremes with many concepts and beliefs. For once, I think that some lawmakers are attempting to be even handed and just (can't belief I'm saying this) in their application of the amendment. (I will likely disagree with myself later)
Oh, and as far as that "In GOD we trust" phrase on the money, I really don't think that because 80 something % of the people voted to keep it proves that they all believe in god. I would have voted to keep it and I'm definitely not traditionally religious.
Only if you tell them to only use medical procedures discovered by Saints.
I? I know no unicorns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
