posted on December 11, 2000 11:22:56 AM
the "supreme court" thread got a little off track and got into this issue. i posted this question there but think it is worth its own thread. here goes- is it a contradiction to believe in the freedoms of speech and religion and still support the separation of church and state? for example- if Bush ended a public speech with "God bless all Christians" or Lieberman with "God bless all Jews" would that be acceptable as opposed to "God bless America"? let's keep it generic.
posted on December 11, 2000 11:46:39 AM
I do not believe it a contradiction to believe in the freedoms of speech and religion and still support the separation of church and state.
The example doesn't make any sense to me. Either could make any of the 3 quotes without infringing the separation of church and state. I would be shocked at either the Christians or Jews quotes but each has the freedom (talent?) to place foot in mouth.
posted on December 11, 2000 11:46:50 AM
the wording of the question is more rhetorical than anything. what is the reasoning besides what someone said on another thread about political hari-kari? doesn't the separation of church and state mean among other things that there should be no religious references from the government?
[ edited by stusi on Dec 11, 2000 11:50 AM ]
posted on December 11, 2000 11:56:33 AM
I can give you a real life example of just this sort of thing.
The Representative from Alabama, Rob Aderholt commented on the propriety of a (I think) a Hindu priest who did the benediction the day Congress was visited by an Indian dignitary.
Old Rob stated (roughly) that as the United States is a Christian nation it was inappropriate for the blessing to be done by anyone but a Christian.
All of Robs re-election ads leaned heavily how really Christian he is. Rob would put prayer back in the schools if the rest of us would just admit how wrong we are. Alabama also has the honor of a Judge who won't take the 10 Commandments out of his court. He was re-elected too.
posted on December 11, 2000 12:08:52 PM
"if Bush ended a public speech with "God bless all Christians" or Lieberman with "God bless all Jews" would that be acceptable as opposed to "God bless America"?"
Well, I don't think it should be prohibited, but I think it would be political suicide. It would be the same as saying "God bless all Republicans," or "God bless all Democrats." You can say it, but you're running the risk, in one case, of alienating a large number of non-Christian or non-Jewish potential voters, or of non-Republican or non-Democratic voters.
Of course, using the same line of reasoning, by saying "God bless America," you run the risk of alienating non-Americans. But, as potential voters, they're not a significant number, so the potential political benefit outweighs the potential political harm.
Here's what the Constitution says about freedom of religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
You can look all through the Constitution and never find anything specifically mandating the separation of Church and State. That's a doctrine derived from the interpretation of the first amendment right to freedom of religion.
posted on December 11, 2000 12:19:15 PM
donny-you would also run the risk of alienating atheists and people who believe in an entity other than "God". i guess in this country that is such a small number that no one cares about alienating them. in light of what you said about the constitution(assuming you are accurate) on what legal basis was school prayer forbidden?
posted on December 11, 2000 12:43:20 PM
stusi - I was going to pass on this one because it requires a Basic Understanding of What The Founding Fathers interpretted Seperation of Church and State to entail. And from reading the threads here and elsewhere on the internet. The Average peson seems to not know what that clause is to protect against.
So I will first explain what Seperation of Church and State means. This isn't an opinion by the way it is a fact. To prevent the ignorant pracice of word play, I use State and Nation interchangeably below.
Seperation of Church and State, is to prevent any Church/Religion/or other such organization from advancing the principles of its religous belief onto the National Agenda of the Nation or the State.
Don't want to accept that as fact? Well here's some proof of what happens when the Church dictates the agenda of the State. Europe has fought numerous wars over Religion in the period 1600 - 1800. The founding fathers observed the toll on the State/Nation that such wars extracted. They wanted to ensure that in a Nation founded under a concept of Freedom of Worship that the Nation never advanced the religous agenda of one faith.
Want more proof, look at any country governed by Islamic Law. That is religous law, notice how the State advances that only Islam is to be worshipped. Only laws/customs accepted under Islamic law are acceptable. The agenda of the rest of the Islamic World takes priority over the agenda of the people themselves.
Need some more, let's address the Northern Ireland issue. That is the world's longest and most continuous religous war. Fought for over 800 years because Henry VII pulled England out of the Catholic Church. And although the semantics of the War have changed the basic principles of why they have been fighting remains the same, Protesants vs. Catholics.
Now back to the context of the thread. America was founded on Protesant beliefs, all of the founding fathers were christian men. They firmly beleived in freedom of all religions even those with practices counter to their beliefs. But they firmly understood that religion is the greatest manipulator of the minds of men. With that acceptance uniformly accepted they wanted to ensure that the Government would never fall victim to advancing the agenda of one religion over another.
So for a leader to say God Bless America is not wrong. For a Islamic Representative to say Allah Praise America is not wrong, for a Jewish leader to say Jehovah Bless America is not wrong. For a Buddist to chant for buddah to grant alms to America is not wrong. Because that is the exercising of that individuals religious freedom. And saying it does nothing to trample on any other individuals right to call the Supreme Diety whatever they please.
Now for an Irish Catholic President to say that America will support and honor the fighters in Northern Ireland because they are Catholic violates seperation of Church and State. For a Jewish President to say we will support our Jewish brothers in Isreal because they are Jewish is yet another violation. In short America will never honor the promoting of the dogma of no one church in its policy or laws.
posted on December 11, 2000 01:06:24 PM
networker- 1. i am not codasaurus 2. i am not arguing with you. 3. i agree with most of your points 4. for a Jewish person to say "Jehovah bless America" is wrong because you are attributing a deity to the wrong religion. 5. you and codasaurus would make great political opponents. 6. lighten up
posted on December 11, 2000 03:40:45 PM
how about those citizens who belong to religions that do not venerate one single supreme deity but rather are polytheistic?
posted on December 11, 2000 03:51:19 PM
victoria said: "Alabama also has the honor of a Judge who won't take the 10 Commandments out of his court. He was re-elected too."
Actually it's worse than that. The 10 Commandments Judge, Roy Moore, was elected to the position of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
posted on December 11, 2000 07:25:21 PM
"donny-you would also run the risk of alienating atheists and people who believe in an entity other than "God". i guess in this country that is such a small number that no one cares about alienating them."
Yes, I think that's right, a politician doesn't really consider how to court the atheist vote, or how to avoid the risk of alienating them. As a politician, you go for attracting the largest number of voters you can.
"In light of what you said about the constitution(assuming you are accurate) on what legal basis was school prayer forbidden?"
Well, I'm accurate, but all I could do is suggest that you find the Constitution posted online and read it yourself to prove it, it wouldn't do to post the whole Constitution here and then say - look, it's not in there.
Actually, school prayer wasn't forbidden. According to Chococake's rationale, it should be, because it's a promulgation of religion in public. (actually, if you took Chococake's thinking further, her (his?) standard would lead to the prohibition of any public worship, including in churches that are open to the public.) If it were really that promulgation of religion was illegal in all schools, that would mean that all parochial schools were illegal.
It's only in public schools that school prayer is forbidden. The reason it's prohibited in public schools isn't because public schools are "public," (i.e. accessible to everyone), but because they're government run.
posted on December 11, 2000 07:55:55 PM
Hello networker,
While reading your statement I forgot for a minute that here at AW it is the post that is discussed and not the poster. I am so glad I remembered that because for a minute I thought you were being rather condescending.
I am glad that you were able to explain this fact to the average person. You are most kind to enlighten us.
posted on December 11, 2000 08:25:48 PM
donny - Technically you are wrong about the Seperation of Church and State thing in the constitution. I use the term technically because it depends on an individuals interpretation of the document. Article VI, Section III of the Constitution. I will post it here since it isn't that long.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures. and all the executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Under that language Article VI sets Church and State seperate because to have a religious test you have to acknowledge acceptance of the principles of one or more religions. Therefore Church and State are seperate under the Constitution.
So its there you just have to know where to look. Now why prayer was wiped from schools you are dead on the money.
shar9 - Sorry you felt insulted but the fact remains the average person still doesn't understand the document that means so much to our everyday lives. But I listened to a Washington Post expert on the Supreme Court not know that the Constitution sets their terms for life barring impeachment. To paraphrase him I don't know for sure if it is in the Constitution but we accept that they serve for life. Needless to say I turned to another channel no need in watching a so called expert not understand such an important aspect of the very thing that he is supposed to be an expert about.
stusi - Who do you think Jehovah is the God of if not the Jews?
posted on December 11, 2000 10:45:05 PM
There's an article in today's online New York Times about a case that might be one that moves up, if the Supreme Court is looking for a case to rule on about schools and the separation of Church and State.
"Court Overturns Use of Vouchers in Ohio Schools
A federal appeals court declared a Cleveland school voucher program unconstitutional, ruling that the use of public money to send thousands of children to parochial schools breaches the First Amendment's separation of church and state."
The full text of the two page article begins here:
posted on December 12, 2000 08:44:05 AM
networker67-you seem to be an intelligent person. however,your "holier than thou" attitude is apparently turning many people off. i am sure you are aware of the "ignore comments by this poster" option on your profile. i suspect that many will start to use it if they haven't already. i don't want to get into an argument with you, but your continued statement that Jehovah is the Jewish God is wrong. the actual name for God in the Jewish faith is considered an "unpronounceable" four letter name referred to as the "tetragrammaton" which predates modern religions. as such the word "Ha-shem" is used which simply means "the name". occasionally the words "Elohaynu" or "Adonoy" are used. there is an ancient Greek transliteration of the four letters which in Hebrew are yod,he,vav,and he. taking the first letters of the names of the Hebrew letters and adding vowels they came up with Yehovah(there was no "J" sound until the 1600's). there is no reference to Yehovah or Jehovah in the Jewish religion today. donny- i am aware that it is only in public schools that vocal prayer is forbidden. i was just curious, in light of the vague legal references to religion as previously mentioned, how these laws got passed.
[ edited by stusi on Dec 12, 2000 10:38 AM ]
posted on December 12, 2000 08:59:11 AM
edited to add... this is an excerpt from the site linked to below. Mr.P.
Factors to Consider About School Prayer:
This topic generates a great deal more heat than light. A number of points are might be considered concerning prayer and other religious activities in public classrooms:
Contrary to generally held belief, school prayer is not forbidden in public schools. A student can come early to class, sit quietly, and pray silently. Similarly, with some discipline, a student can pray upon rising, as a family before leaving home, even (if they can concentrate over the noise) in a school bus, in the cafeteria, etc.
If students are allowed to organize any type of extra-curricular group, such as a science club or political club, then they are free to organize religious or prayer groups. The federal "equal access" law requires this of all school districts that receive federal funding. They may hold their meetings on school property, advertise their group, etc. to the same extent as non-religious student groups.
Students do not leave their constitutional rights at the door of the school: they can wear clothing that promotes a specific religion or denomination; they can discuss the religious aspects of a topic in class, etc.
there is a sizable minority of parents (and by implication, children) who are follow other than Christian religions or who follow no religion at all. They find a state-sponsored Christian prayer to be deeply offensive, and an attack on their freedom of religion.
many deeply Christian and other religious parents and children who pray regularly regard enforced, state written prayers to be deeply offensive and a violation of fundamental human rights.
some jurisdictions have allowed objecting students to leave the room and thus be excused from reciting a prayer. However, this action subjects the students to harassment by their peers.
to require students to recite a Christian prayer implies state recognition of Christianity as a religion of special status in the country. This is interpreted by many that religions other than Christianity are of inferior status. That promotes conflict among faith groups and intolerance towards minority religions.
attempting to decide what prayers should be used can result in inter-denominational conflict among Christians. More conservative groups might ask for prayers which deal with sin, Satan, Hell and the necessity of being saved. Mainstream groups may want to write prayers which emphasize the love of God and responsibilities to one's fellow humans.
The freedom for parents and a school system to require children to recite a state-written prayer conflicts with the rights of parents and students who wish freedom from compulsory prayer. Some jurisdictions have reached various compromises that balance the rights and desires of opposing groups: some schools institute a moment of silence that students can use to pray silently, or meditate, or simply center themselves.
most schools allow any interested students to gather outside the classroom in the school to pray as a group.
in Canada, some school systems have a list of prayers drawn from a variety of religions that are found in the state or province. These prayers are read in sequence by a volunteer. Students are not required to recite the words; they can simply remain silent. This approach has a valuable educational component. Students learn a little about many religions. They realize that there are many different religions in the world and that society recognizes that all have worth.
posted on December 12, 2000 10:29:07 AM
stusi - Its not exactly holier than thou than it is a little smarter than you. So I draw your attention to Exodus 3:13 and Exodus 3:14, when you get done with those shift over to Exodus 6:3. If that isn't enough for you shift to Psalm 83:18, then you can visit my favorite book Isaiah 12:2.
Once you are done with the bible reading. Keep in mind that the Hebrew Alphabet when translated to euro romance languages, ie German, English, French, Spanish, Italian has no letter that equates to J or for that matter I either. And I will assume that you read from either the King James Bible or one of its many derivatives. As such the name JEHOVAH is the closet translation from hebrew to our romance languages. And keep in mind that many Jewish Congregations use the word to give a reference to a name that can be spoken by all.
Now if the only reference you have ever heard to jehovah is from Jehovah's Witnesses. I will say you are the victim of an ignorant pulpit and should discuss that with the Superintendent of Sunday School and the Pastor of your Church. Nothing I can do about that except point you to the Good Book so you can read it for yourself.
Don't let a zeal to correct place you in position that you get corrected. Now feel free to use that ignore button. I find it useful at times myself. We do agree however that Mrpotataohead last post was excellent.
posted on December 12, 2000 10:42:07 AM
Crud, I hate using that "ignore" feature but this just may be the exception - I may just have to ploink networker67 because I dislike pretentious people (who think they are so much smarter than everyone else) with a passion.
edited for spelling
[ edited by nobs on Dec 12, 2000 10:55 AM ]
posted on December 12, 2000 10:55:24 AM
networker- please refer to my edited previous post. your statement that many Jewish congregations use the name Jehovah is erroneous. i don't know where you get your information from but it is obviously not from attending a Jewish service. perhaps a bible that Jews do not use refers to their God by that name, but their's does not. "the victim of an ignorant pulpit"? you are getting very close to being admonished by the moderators for demeaning statements about another's religion!
posted on December 12, 2000 10:57:39 AM
As for the separation of Church and State...
Every dollar bill has "In God We Trust"
Our "Pledge to the Flag" contains the words "One Nation Under God" and is required in nearly every school.
When testifying in Court, one must place their hand on a "Christian" bible and swear to God to tell the truth.
When entering the Military service, many government organizations including some federal and state law enforcement agencies a person is required to "Swear to God" as part of their oath of office / graduation.
Immigrants becoming US Citizens must also "Swear to God" during their oath.
Liquor Stores in many states are closed on Sunday due to the Sabbath.
posted on December 12, 2000 11:37:47 AMEvery dollar bill has "In God We Trust"
Do you know why?
Almost a century and a half ago, 11 Protestant denominations mounted a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. Rev. M.R. Watkinson was the first of many to write a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Samuel P. Chase in 1861 to promote this concept. 8 In 1863, Chase asked the Director of the Mint, James Pollock to prepare suitable wording for a motto to be used on coins. Pollock suggested "Our Trust Is In God," "Our God And Our Country," "God And Our Country," and "God Our Trust." Chase decided to have "In God We Trust" used on some of the coins.
Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
Do you know when "In God We Trust" was first used on dollar bills?
IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957.
posted on December 12, 2000 12:04:42 PM
MrJim - Your statement, "When testifying in Court, one must place their hand on a "Christian" bible and swear to God to tell the truth."
Your post made me think of something that I noticed when watching witnesses being sworn in for the recent presidential election court hearings. And that was that I did not see anyone put their hand on a bible while being sworn in. I was surprised as that is the way it's always been handled. I'm not sure but they may not have been asked the standard question the way they used to be either. (Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the true, so help you God?) I can't remember if the 'swear to God' was left off or not.
