Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY college!

Fred and Dave,

Thank you for your posts. I'd like to add an interesting fact. When I ask my religious right friends how many times God, or Deity, or Creator or Church or any other religious term is found in the US Constitution, I get the answer "lots".

In fact, the number for each of those terms is zero. The word religion is in the first amendment once, but the wording is mainly as a restriction of religion in it's relationship to government.

Mark

 

The religious right is frightening. The very idea of them attempting to ahere to some semblance of morality, virtue, principle, and strength scares me.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

If your friends keep dismissing the connection, just hand them pictures over and over again of a puppet on a string. Don't write anything on the picture, and see how long it takes for them to realize the connection. :wink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"100128)</div>

Exactly! The mere fact that our founding fathers were practicing Deism supports your post. Sometimes it's as though religion and the far right for a lot of these people is a "bandwagon" offense. Compare it with the fact that on September 10, 2001 how many US flags did you see flying on every porch in the US? How many did you see on September 12, 2001? The religious right and the radical right wing fanatics are at idle except when a situation supports their cause (Terry Schiavo is a prime example), and Jeb and the Florida cronies are still going after the case, refusing to let it lay and let Terry rest in peace.

What about all the other people that lie in a persistant vegitative state? When the machines are turned off, where are all the protests for them? Where are all the religious right leaders for them? Well, perhaps it's because MSNBC isn't there with a camera and slathering their logo feces all over the issue...ack....too much to cover in just a few short paragraphs. Someone should tell the religious right that God himself would be sickened by their display of behavior. The way most of them act is in direct opposition to the character (so to speak) of God and what God stands for.

To coin an old, yet tried and tested phrase...."The Religious Right is Neither"

Dave.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

priius04 said:
>Fred and Dave,
>
>Thank you for your posts. I'd like to add an interesting fact. When I ask my >religious right friends how many times God, or Deity, or Creator or Church >or any other religious term is found in the US Constitution, I get the answer >"lots".
>In fact, the number for each of those terms is zero. The word religion is in >the first amendment once, but the wording is mainly as a restriction of >religion in it's relationship to government.
>Mark

Just I quick comment here:
Interesting Fact:
The phrase "seperation of church and state" is also NOT found in the constitution. Your 1st amendment analysis can also be:
...but the wording is mainly as a restiction of government in it's relationship to religion.

Anyone care to post the cmplete unaltered text of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution for all to see? Unforttunately, I do not have it handy.

And, be advised, I didn't once mention any support for any religion. So,
please don't be calling me a "right-wing" religious fanatic. I dislike the name-calling that occurs on both sides of the political spectrum.

Michael

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"100129)</div>

You do realize the absurdity of your post I hope.

Every single person in this thread probably has zero issue with what any so-called religious person believes and thinks and says. It's when they try to shove it down the throats of the rest of us that we get upset. And whether they have the corner on "virtue" and "principle", as you put it, is in the eye of the beholder.

You do actually read the posts don't you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott\";p=\"100168)</div>

Although the 1st amendment does not specifically state a "separation of church and state", it's there for you to interpret.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Hybrid_Dave wrote:
>Although the 1st amendment does not specifically state a "separation of >church and state", it's there for you to interpret.

Oh, sorry - I didn't interpret that phrase. Please consider that I was posting about some one commenting on the sparse mention of religion in the US Constitution. Can I take any book, and use that LOGIC and add a phrase as
it can be intrepreted from this un-named book?.

It is interesting how that specific phrase is always troted out as an attack on
religion - but alas it is not in the constitution.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hybrid_Dave\";p=\"100170)</div>

Thanks Dave,

Anyone who has access to a computer (EDIT: I mean internet, not computer) has access to the constitution. Just google it. In fact, you pretty much have access to nearly everything.

Michael, for 218 years (I 'm pretty sure the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were passed in 1787), this has been interpreted as telling government to stay out of religion, and at the same time telling government to stay out of the religious affairs of the population. In other words, you are free to practice your religion, but government is contrained from practicing your religion for you or on your behalf.

Sounds like a pretty clear separation to me. Indeed, the term "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson himself. He's generally considered one of the founding fathers. Indeed, the Constitution itself is in his handwriting.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott\";p=\"100180)</div>

The phrase "separation of church and state" has never been used by me or by any learned person I know to attack religion. It has been used to keep government out of religion.

And there is not a sparse number of religious words in the Constitution. There's a dearth of them, except to restrict governments connection to religion.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Many original colonies refused to approve the Constitution unless the Bill of Rights were voted on at the same time. The Bill of Rights is the term for the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Whether the amendments are part of the constitution or not is up to you, but the Bill of Rights are generally considered part of the constitution because they became law the exact same day and time. It was a package deal. Thus it is not wrong to say that the concept of keeping the government out of the religion business is part of our constitution. To say it is not is splitting hairs.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Yes,
Thanks for posting the text for us Hybrid_Dave.

Prious04:
I agree - government SOULD NOT establish a "national religion.
The site you cited said:
"...address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level.."
NOTE: I don't want my home state to establish a religion either.

How ever, other documents from that era in our past implies a religious
connection. I of course refer to the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers.

That being said, I do IMHO find that some people use the "separation of church and state" phrase to attack religion. The 1st amendment prohibits the government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in regards to
establishing a religion.

IMHO, I find that some people (and judges) use part of the 1st amendmet
(Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) to trample on ( or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)"

Which means to me, that an indiviidual can express his (or her) religious views - regardless where he(she) happens to be. This means a government employee doesn't give up their religious rights just because
it might offend someone. That being said, all people should be considerate of others - one does not convert anyone to a relious stance by being dogmatic.


Again, thanks for the link.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott\";p=\"100199)</div>

Actually, the ACLU has come to the defense of children who wanted to pray in school and were not allowed to. The ACLU argued -- successfully -- that the children had the right to pray guaranteed by the constitution and that the schools had to obey.

On the other hand, when the teacher leads those kids in a prayer, this is seen as government, (the teacher as the representative of government) as certifying a religion, thus a violation of the same amendment. It's a sticky problem. Thus, kids cannot be blocked from praying in school, but if the school encourages it too blatantly, the school is also in violation. All across America, schools have figured out a way to allow prayer while not appearing to endorse any one religion. It can be very sticky problem sometimes though. Personally, I think that when it gets to be a problem somewhere, it is either a misunderstanding, or someone is grandstanding.

The same is true for all government employees and there have been some sticky cases over the years where employees wanted to "push the envelope" to the point where they imposed their religion -- something that is unconstitutional for the government agency to "look the other way on", and other situations where the government agency bans everything remotely religious. This is also wrong.

A perfect case is Judge Roy Moore in Texas. All across America, judges have the Ten Commandments and other entirely legal items in their chambers. They have a constitutional right to that and the ACLU would certainly agree with that. However, Moore had them placed in his Court Rotunda. This gave the appearance that the State of Texas was endorsing the Ten Commandments. This was deemed unconstitutional, as it clearly was, and they were removed to a back room.

In your post, you stated that an employee has the right to display their religious views, regardless of where they happen to be. Actually, the issue is not quite what the employee does, it's how much freedom does that particular government agency give those employees to display their views. If they agency goes too far in allowing one particular set of religious employees to display their beliefs, then it crosses over to that government agency ENDORSING that religion. And that's a constitutional no-no.

But as you say, if all people are considerate of others, there should never be a problem. Thus, if religious people pray or do anything else in a "religious vein", and they do it as individuals and they do it unobtrusively and privately, then they are protected by the first Amendment. When they become too obstrusive or too blatant, they run the risk of violating that very same Amendment.

It can get sticky, but the overwhelming majority of religious Americans do it every day, day in and day out, with no problem whatsoever.

And personally, I think most judges have worked this out quite well over the years. It is certainly a difficult balancing act.

(Oh and by the way, although Nationally we only have the first amendment to help us with this sticky and complex balancing act, most state constitutions are much more restrictive in allowing connections between government and religion.)

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Prius04:
Nice change - can you trot out any more red herrings like "School Prayer" and "10 Commandment" displays?

You do know that teachers work for the state and not the federal overnment?
But, I digress. My 1st post here was in response to your comment about God not appearing in the Constitution. I pointed out that another popular phrase used by some ("separation of church and state") does not appear in it either.

It was pointed out that extra-Constitutional writings have that (or a similar phrase), to which I replied (in effect) that the Declaration of Independence specifically mentions a "Creator" (which by extension is GOD).

We can continue to pull in emotional appeals all we want. The actual text of the 1st Amendment is clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

IMHO I think many people use the first clause of this sentence to violate the second clause.
I take issue with your implication of a teacher being representative of government (state governmet) , that the federal government is "certifying a religion, thus a violation of the same amendment." Is prayer in school a law passed by congress? The amendment specifically mentions Congress and Laws, but leaves off the other 2 braches of our government.

At this point, I surmise that many of you think that I support state approved prayer in school. I argue points only to bring out debate. I enjoy reading the comments of others. It is interesting to see many people "loose it" in their debating. Fortunately, no one has descended into name calling yet.

Consider this statement for thought:
Is it becoming the case that the majority is being subjected to the tryany of the minority?
What makes your rights anymore important then my rights as long as no one is being deprived of life, liberty or property?
What is the greater good?
Whatever anyone answers, others can come up with counter examples.

Thanks for reading.

 

mlott: I thought Prius04 made some points rather clearly and I saw nothing that he said that would interfere with a person's right to pray in school. Although I appreciate the civility of your comments, I have no idea what you are trying to say. It appears as if you are trying to argue but I can't see that you did. Maybe I misinterpreted.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott\";p=\"100437)</div>

A red herring is an irrelevancy to the central points. You seem to focus on the rights of citizens to display their religion wherever and whenever they want. This is the second half of the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment has contradictory proscriptions for government. You brought up one side of that contradiction, and I pointed out the other and how the courts have dealt with that contradiction. How is that a red herring?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott\";p=\"100437)</div>

You do realize that for a state to enter the Union, they must embrace the US constitution? State employees are part of the government. The government cannot regulate or endorse religion, thus state employees cannot endorse religion. This is the way it has been for 218 years.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott\";p=\"100437)</div>

I agree that there are extra Constitutional writings about God. There are also extra constitutional writings about the imperative for the government to stay out of religion. I included a link to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in that regard. Indeed, as one pointed out by another poster, most of our founding fathers were deists and not truly Christian in the current use of those terms. And there are numerous extra constitutional writings out there to prove that.

As for the Federalist Papers, they were discussion points and have zero legal standings. They are great documents that is true.

The Declaration of Independence is also a great document, but the colonies never voted on the Declaration. And the States that came into existence 11 years after it was written surely did not formally ratify it.

In any case, the Declaration was a document that said a people had rights that were given to them by their creator. The founding fathers then went on to formalize those rights in a constitution that limited what government could do. Thus, government employees, as part of that government, are limited in what they can do. As citizens they have more rights then they do as employees.

The Constitution is central to who we are as a nation. The Declaration is the catalyst for that. It is the WHY of who we are.

Notwithstanding all the other documents that led up to what we became as a people, I still think it is fascinating that the document at the core of our being, the US Constitution with the Bill of Rights, makes zero mention of God, church, creator or deity at all. And the word Religion is only in there as a restriction on what Government can do in so far as it's connection to religion.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott\";p=\"100437)</div>

I accept that this does happen. However, IMHO, I think the number of people who manipulate this complex amendment for their own personal gains greatly outnumber those that give too much credence to the first part of the amendment over the second.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott\";p=\"100437)</div>

Actually, in numerous writings by the founding fathers, they clearly were concerned over the tyranny of the majority. This is why they went so far out of their way to protect the rights of the minority. They did this on purpose.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott\";p=\"100437)</div>

This is really the crux isn't it. Personally, I think we are out of balance and going in the wrong direction. I think the rights of common people are being trampled by the rights of corporations.

And I think this country is heading dangerously close to the imposition of a state religion, or a state religion in every way but in name.


And now it's time for some name calling. You are a good and fair debater and a gentleman. And I thank YOU for reading. Never once did I feel that you were attacking me, rather only that you were attacking my posts. This is the sign of a proper debater. I hope I did as well -- I"m not sure I did so, sorry.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Prius04:
Thanks for the kind comments. It is always nice to see civilized behavior when debating.

FredAtGolf:
My point does not concern School Prayer, or Displaying the 10 Commandments - it was to take issue with making an implication about something being missing from the Constitution. I concede that the constitution does not mention God. I also mentioned that it doesn't mention specifically the phrase "separation of church and state."
This was the beginning of the debate.

During this debate, other documents were brought into the picture to support both positions. Prius04 referenced Thomas Jefferson; and I referenced the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. I am willing to concede the point that early writings can be used to support either position.

As often happens in conversations, and also debate - the topic has unintentionally shifted many ways. This thread actually started as an commentary on President Bush and his speaking at a college. That event is now past, and I doubt that President Bush even remembers it. IMHO, all politicians just do the "glad hand" stuff and move on; niether remembering or caring about the "unwashed masses" that they meet.

Prius04 said:
>Actually, in numerous writings by the founding fathers, they clearly were >concerned over the tyranny of the majority. This is why they went so far >out of their way to protect the rights of the minority. They did this on >purpose.

I completely agree. However, IMHO, I feel that we should also beware of the tyranny of the minority. I prefer a balance.

Thanks for debating,
Michael

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

As an aside:

I love my 2005 Silver Prius (Package 5).
I have had it since May 1st, about 1,500 miles on it now. I am getting about 44 MPG with it. This is good, since I only got 25 MPG (on average) with my Gold 1997Saturn SL2.

I love my hybrid.

 

mlott: That helps, I just don't see the basis of a debate. I only see nuances of difference in what you and Prius04 are saying. Personally, I don't see any loopholes in the Constitution on this issue. I guess the biggest nuance is that it seems Prius04 may be a tad more concerned over minority rights. I have a Masters in teaching Social Studies and his grasp of historical detail is astonishing to me. I think I would enjoy watching his debates/conversations even if I disagreed with him. Actually, I am hoping someday to find something I disagree with him on. I know I will lose the debate, but I also know I will enjoy receiving the information on the subject. Let's try something small - I am against affirmative action and I am against the lottery. What say ye?