Separation of Church and State - Discussion Point

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

One of the basic principles of the U.S. has been separation of Church and State. Is this good or bad?

My personal viewpoint is it is a two-edged sword. The Soviet Union actively discouraged religion among it's population. You have see its fate, which may or may not be related to the question. The Tuliban are probably the polar opposition and represent what can happen when a small group of religious 'fanatics', for want of a better term, take over all of the political and religious functions of a country. Whether you like it or not, the U.S. system seems to be a reasonable compromise. You are free to participant in any religion or religious philosophy you want, but it is kept reasonably separated from the affairs of government.

Discussion of this, in light of the September 11th event is welcome. However, let's try to keep it a discusssion rather than a heated debate. I think it is good for people at this point to basically 'get it off their chests', but let's try to keep it civil.

By the way, I have been kicking all of the September 11th-related threads under Misc. to keep them in one place.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), October 02, 2001

Answers

Well I probably am not the person to answer this, as I believe there should be prayer in schools, and prayer in congress, Since prayer was removed from our schools they have become a war zone. It seems strange that when the twin towers was hit. And the penagon, that every one was praying, Even the government, I believe unless we get prayer back, Our nation is in deep trouble, I thank God we have a President who prays. God Bless Irene

-- Irene texas (tkorsborn@cs.com), October 02, 2001.

I also agree that we need more prayer in our schools, our government, everywhere! However, I don't think it's proper to actually lead a prayer in public schools or government assemblies. I believe time should be allowed for everyone to pray - or not pray - as they see fit. A few quiet minutes for each student/worker/civil servant to meditate or pray or - for those who choose not to partake - to go over the week's grocery list! No one would have to join in a prayer that they might find offensive, but everyone would have the opportunity to pray.

I agree that anyone can pray anytime they feel like it, as has been stated in earlier posts. But, I think it's important to honor this aspect of our lives, especially where our children are involved. Children in public schools are often made to feel that there is something wrong with praying - that it's some clandestine act that should only be performed in private! I would have a problem with Christian prayers being led as a part of public school. (No problem with Christian clubs in school having prayer as part of their club meetings, etc.) There are too many kids who belong to different faiths to lead them all in a Christian prayer at school. But I think a few quiet moments would be wonderful, so all the kids who wanted to pray - however they wanted to pray - would have the opportunity, and the acknowledgement from their school that spirituality was a valuable and honorable part of life.

-- Cheryl in KS (cherylmccoy@rocketmail.com), October 02, 2001.


Separation of church and state is not a basic principal of our constitution. Here's what the constitution states:

Amendment I

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.

The point here is that the federal government may not establish a state religion. Individual states can do so (and did). In my own state, Virginia, the Anglican Church (Episcopal) was the state religion until the early 1800s.

This is a highly-misunderstood part of our Constitution and misinterpreted even by our courts.

-- walt (longyear@shentel.net), October 02, 2001.


I am very opinionated on this one! I beleive in seperation of chruch and state. And the line has been muddied over the years...

I think that at certain times it is appropriate for a moment of silence, but I am pretty much of the line of thought that schools, public finded anyway, should be teaching academics and stay out of religion and morals. A school can and should set some rules of conduct.

Private schools do not fall under that in my mind-they are just that private-the state has no business sticking their nose in period. :)

Just curious if it would be a surprise to anyone if I said that I am a devout christian? Prayer is a very real part of my life and my childrens lives...as their parents we bring them up accordig to our beleifs-and no one has any business butting in. (except those we *choose* to let in, such as our church, and our school which is private).

How that relates for us and September 11...hmmm. that is tough. We beleive n nonresistance (we are Mennonite) and yet we are praying for our leaders-and know that the job they have is huge-war/retaliation is something that we expect from our government-it was ordained by God and has a different set of rules/differetn duty than the church and the individual christian. That is a hard thing to distinguish for some. But we know that it would be completely inappropriate for our givernment to take a nonresistant approach! Ludicrous!. :) We are grateful for the freedom we do have in our country, and the government should preserve those freedoms. and yet I admit that sometimes I get a bit riled up when it seems that those freedoms are eroded becaus of some particular group or interest. Those times are a struggle for me. But I am human and thankful that when i stray from the path that God has called me to-He reminds me of where I belong.

Sarah

-- Sarah (heartsongacres@juno.com), October 02, 2001.


I don't believe that the government was trying to keep religion totally out of the state. I believe what they was trying to do is keep the state from being run from one individual religion.(do it the catholic way or etc.) Why would they want to totally seperate it and at the same time have the name God in the pledge of allegience, In God we trust on our coins, etc.

I would agree that I would totally be offended if my children had to go to school and pray to "Ali" when I believe in the holy trinity. So I can see why a muslim parent is offended if there child has to particapate in a prayer based on our beliefs.

However, I still believe a child should have the opportunity to participate in some type of a prayer at school. Whether it be a silent prayer, or a prayer that the individual child prays in their own beliefs.

If a childs parents are athiest, than the child should have the opportunity to leave the classroom at that moment if they please.

-- r.h. in okla. (rhays@sstelco.com), October 02, 2001.



I must have missed something in my history classes, but wasn't this country founded on the principles of religion? Isn't that why the pilgrims came over here in the first place? If I remember correctly, and I admit my history is a bit hazy, but were the founding fathers not, without exeption, devout Christians? We still use the Great Seal which was designed by the same team who penned the Declaration of Independence. The Seal includes several spiritual symbols, such as the Eye of Providence, which were chosen by the founding fathers in order to convey their experience of providence in favor of the American cause. It also includes the motto, "annuit coeptis", which translated means "He has smiled on our undertakings". Now I speak as a non-Christian, yet I have no problem with having a moment for silent prayer/meditation offered in schools- in fact I think it should be mandatory- those who choose not to pray can still take a moment to reflect upon the good fortune they enjoy from living in the USA. I also think the Pledge of Allegience should be recited daily, including all references to God, as it was written, in the context of history, however, rather than religion. The point that should be made to our school kids is that we have a great deal to be thankful for, and regardless of what our present-day individual beliefs are, we all benefit from the actions that our forefathers took as a result of their beliefs, which happened to have been based in religion. I think we have all become so accustomed to the freedoms we enjoy that we now take many of them for granted. In my home, at each meal, we do not say grace, as such, but we do offer a "generic" thanks for the fact that we do have food on the table and a decent home to live in, and my nephews know that not everyone in the world, or even in this country, enjoys the priveledges that we do. I think that is an important lesson and one that is not being taught to a great many of our citizens today, especially our kids. I'm rambling here a little because I don't know how to make this point without sounding hypocritical, but I'm going to jump in anyway. I have never understood why it is deemed necessary to live one's life according to religious doctrine. It seems to me that it ought to be self-evident as to what is right and what is wrong and people should govern themselves accordingly. If someone is inherently evil then no amount of Sunday school is going to change that. Parents should be able to teach their children and guide them on their own, without benefit of a book telling them what is right. But, in looking over the course of the recent history of this country, it does seem apparent that as people have pulled away from the church more and more, the problems we face as a society seem to have increased proportionately. Maybe this is just a coincidence, and we all know that not everyone who attends church is a model citizen anyway, but it does occur to me that something is lacking, and it may be that lessons once taught in church and Sunday school classes are no longer being learned outside of the church. Which is not to say that I think we need more churches, but rather, that we need to make sure that we are teaching our children the lessons of right and wrong, loyalty to family and friends, a sense of patriotism towards our country, and gratitude for the providence with which we have been blessed (if I can use the term blessed in a non-religious context).

-- Elizabeth (ekfla@aol.com), October 02, 2001.

someone wrote "wasn't this country founded on the principles of religion? "

In a sense yes it was...but really it was freedom from mandated religion. ( Meaning which one.)

This was hotly contested even back then...during the colonial times thre were some who vehemently felt that our country must be a christian country-and yes there were christians fleeing from persecution with the pilgrims. But there were conflicts from the get go on just what direction this would take.

for example there were some who felt that we should be a christian nation and that other groups should be made to conform to what their idea( what sect) of christian meant-hense the indians being rounded up and made to conform to white mans religion-an often bloody process. Some groups though felt that if the white men came over and started a new nation, a christian nation then the problems for centuries in Europe and what they sought refuge from would happen all over again. so they felt that government should not have any say so...

In a nutshell, since the advent of our country, men have argued and tangled over this subject. These conflicts have resulted in towns governing what its citizens should beleive, and what they shouldn't (resulted in things such as witchunts) and towns settled as all one particular group. Men seem to follow that principle of birds of a feather flock together. (and that is not wrong per se-except when someone who is of a different kid of feather comes in to live).

Someone pointed out that the consititution intended for the entire us government not to mandate a religion, but it did give states the right to do so. I think that is true...but that had to change too-as this country grew and became a melting pot. The whole states rights issue came to a head precivil war. The states were not free to have their own rights laws, constitutions etc-as became obvious with slavery and more importantly other governing issues. The civil war was about much much more than slavery. And that war, which split our nation into pieces, I believe was an attempt (though not entirely succesful) to once and for all settle the issue- unifying our nation that government, us or state had a role that was seperate from the church and individuals.

Our history is fascinating-but truly there are different views on the birht of our nation-depending on which side of this many faceted issue you are on.

-- Sarah (heartsongacres@juno.com), October 02, 2001.


Man, has political correctness put us in some quandries . . .

When I was in public school (1969 - 1981), we recited the Pledge of Allegience (sp?) in school. We stood up, placed our hands over our hearts, and recited it out loud. Many of us just rolled our eyes, stood up and went along with everybody else. Anyone who chose not to participate (everybody at least stood up, out of respect or guilt I don't know which), were not teased or made fun of.

I'm out of touch I guess; I can't see the harm in MENTIONING God in school. If there was ever a class discussion in history mentioning different religions, the Baptist children weren't duking it out with the Catholic kids, the Methodists weren't fighting with the kids of Jewish faith, we didn't fight about it. If someone brought up a point, we just considered it, nodded appreciatively, and went on. Life sure was far more simpler then. Now, it seems that even having the word God on a bulletin board brings the ACLU screaming to the doorstep, sirens wailing, SWAT teams, etc. Much ado about nothing, in my opinion.

I do agree that no one should be ridiculed in public or private for their religious beliefs. If public prayer is offered, then pray to yourself in respect to your faith, or don't pray at all and have a quiet moment to yourself.

-- j.r. guerra (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), October 02, 2001.


j.r. Was that you at my school? :o)

Seems that I remember a few getting their hide's tanned for poking fun at a little indian girls religion. I guess we were just hillbilly's the world view today seem's really screwey.

-- K & S (healthywizard@earthlink.net), October 02, 2001.


I don't know if I am crossing the line here in using scripture to make a point, but here it is: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance" Psalm 33:12. If you're interested, the entire Psalm (33) speaks to this subject very well.

As to the pilgrims, they came to have freedom to worship their way. If you didn't worship their way they persecuted you. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Maryland, and some others had more freedom than New England. The US was founded on moral, even biblical, principles, but the founding fathers were not all Christians in the biblical sense of the word. The separation clause was meant to protect religion from the state, not the other way around.

-- Cathy N. (keeper8@attcanada.ca), October 02, 2001.



The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. It contained no mention of the phrase "under God". This was added after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus in 1954. If schools wish to go back to the original version, I say more power to them.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), October 02, 2001.

The words separation of Church and State are NOT!!!! a basic principles of the US. The word Church does not even appear in the consititution or the admendments. Religion only appears once in the first amendment. The 1st specifies that the US may not make a national religion. Nothing more. Say nothing about prayer, nothing about the government should avoid religion, simply that there will ne no national religion.

The words "separation of Church and State" were uttered by Adams many years after the war of independance was over.

-- Gary (gws@redbird.net), October 02, 2001.


by the way....'seperation'( the word) is correctly not a part of the constitution etc...but it IS very much a part of christian life-in the Bible this is taught.I will spare you the verse references.

Now I am sure that no one here wants me to force my christianity down there throats-justt as I don't wish anyone to force me to beleive in another kind of christianity or anythign else for that matter. :)

The words may not be there-but isn't the principle there? Is it not implied by the congress not making any law regarding religion -that we are free to choose? and does it means the state (including the Nation) has nothing whatsoever to do whether a person beleives this that or the other thing?

And as to whether our founding fathers were christians-maybe they were.( I have read that Thomas Jefferson was a Deist-not entirely sure what that means) But does that mean that they thought only their religion to be right? i don't think so. I think instead that they recognized that individual right for a person to beleive in whatever made them happy. the pursuit of happiness. and the state ( government) should not infringe upon that right.

Sarah

-- Sarah (heartsongacres@juno.com), October 02, 2001.


It seems that many forum members find the issue of prayer in school to be a point of contention in the discussion of Separation of Church and State. I, too, grew up in a time where we did pray in school, on occasion, as did the nation in the past two weeks. No parents voiced outrage or opposition over this. It was always conducted as a moment of silence to bow our heads and, in keeping with our individual faiths, to pray or to reflect upon the issue with which we were confronted. In the years since, this one aspect of religion has become guite a lightning rod, just the tip of the iceburg I suspect, for the sense of frustration some feel over the absence of any religious symbolism in civic affairs. Yes we are all free to warship as we like, to pray as we feel the need, to raise our children as we believe our faith may require. But what we are not free to do is to require that our personal beliefs and practices be required by others in society who may not believe as we do. Separation of Church and State means that we are not to use any religious belief as the basis of federal law. They have that in countries governed by religious leaders. If a person is found guilty of adultry in some of these countries, the price is execution. Theft is dealt with by severing an arm. Cutting off one's beard in some cultures is punishable by public stoning. Now talk about the loss of personal freedoms. I believe that the issue of Separation of Church and State addresses the act of passing laws that require individuals to conform to our personal choice or branch of religion. The laws of Islam would have many Christian women in violation of civic law by going out in public exposing their faces. Do we want that kind of law in our country? I think not. Why? Because its too restrictive to those who are of other faiths. But, those women who are Islamic are absolutely free to were the traditional garb of the religion. We just cannot require all women to live by that rule. And so, where would you draw the line on what religious rule to use or not use as the basis of law? Why do some people feel the need to force others to live by there faith? This freedom is why America is the best country on Earth and the maintenance of personal freedom is something I will fight for on any level.

-- Dwight (summit1762@aol.com), October 02, 2001.

Good question Ken, and yet my answer is hard to put into words. I'm FOR separation of church and state, most definitely. Religion is a personal thing. It's an issue between a person and their God. This country was founded I believe first and foremost on freedom. Personal freedom, religious freedom, freedom to live and pursue individual hopes and dreams. Freedom to make our own decisions, thank you very much! Individuality and equality are precious commodities to Americans. When the pilgrims came over, they were representative of another country. At the time of the revolution, we declared independance from any other country (England)and from unfair practices (such as taxation without representation) and set up the constitution to ensure certain freedoms for generations to come. I hope my off-the-cuff history is accurate! My history-buff-husband will be up in arms if I mis-state anything. :)

I guess keeping church and state separate protects both church and state. We wouldn't want our government to be dictated by a religious group and its beliefs, be it a minority religious group or a majority religious group. If we allowed that, we've taken freedom from those who don't agree with said faith. On the other hand, we don't want the government telling our churches what they may or may not adhere to either. Separation protects both institutions, if we are to hold on to our freedom.

To ensure our freedom, we elect our government periodically from the general populace. There are checks and balances in place that have worked quite well, all in all. No one group is allowed too much power or control. If power looks like it's about to swing in any given direction, you can count on loud angry screams of protest from the other side. :) That's a good thing.

I think with such an extreme group as the Taliban it's easy to compare freedom vs. a total lack thereof. It wouldn't matter if this group were based on religion or not, the end result of their control is the same and it offends us (who value freedom so much)to the core. I stated it wouldn't matter if the group controlling were religious or not. But unfortunately, I think it's easier for a religious group to gain control initially. Individuals who share the same basic beliefs are often times all too willing to follow a leader and place their trust blindly. It may not be until too late that these people realize their predicament, if they do at all. Some remain so deluded that they can only see themselves serving their "God" and his cause, when in reality their sole reason for existence has become to serve those who weild power and control over them.

Something in me recoils in almost horror at the thought of any religious group controling this nation. I was raised in a Baptist setting. But when I listen to groups like Focus on the Family which is a leader of sorts from my own brand of religion, it makes me almost sick to my stomach to imagine the power this group or any other like it has gained over so many. I can only hope and pray that their power won't be strengthened. It becomes the opinions of a few that dictate how everyone else should be forced or coerced into living thier lives.

A couple of years ago, I left my church for these very reasons. The church was trying to dictate what I could or could not do and still be in good standing with God. I didn't always agree with the leadership's opinions and took from them the power to control my life and relationship with God when I walked out the doors.

Because I value freedom I say YES to separation of church and state.

-- Nancy in Maine (paintme61@yahoo.com), October 02, 2001.



Have the American people missed the boat on this subject or what?

Amendment 1, (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.) Also almost all states have the same similar wording in their Constituitions.

It says SHALL MAKE NO LAW, but yet we now have laws up the wazoo concerning where and if and how you can worship,where you can put the word God,if you can have a cross,if you are allow to pray at school football games,where you can build a church,laws in regards to being profit or non-profit,etc.,etc. The Christian people kept quiet and all the oil nows gos to the squeaky wheel.

As too the country going down hill as a poster mention earlier,morals always become less and less rigid as people become more and more prosperous plus all civilize groups from time beginning have diminished in size,power,infulence from these main causes: greed,corruption,disappointed ambition and a inordinate thirst for power with factions forming & liberty being endangered. It is happening here in America now and will continue slowly,until one day our children's children will wake up and find we are just a common nation.

-- TomK(mich) (tjk@cac.net), October 02, 2001.


A lot of people who attended Catholic schools in the past would not recognize them today. Most students are not even Christian these days, let alone Catholic, and some of the schools excuse nonbelievers from the religion classes, which were studied and tested on just as math and science were. That is truly bizarre. Catholic school is fast becoming the poor man's "private school".

As far as prayer in public schools, perhaps it should be a lay person who says, "Let's bow our heads and reflect on this in our own way for a moment" and not mention any belief in particular.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 02, 2001.


I don't understand how saying a prayer ever hurt anyone? If we meantion "God" how can we offend anyone since ALL religions worship God of some sort. If someone does not believe in God how does that offend or hurt them? If they don't believe in God, then how can they -- it is only a word.

I think most people want to change things according to thier belief rather than the blending of religions -- which is REALLY what this country was about. The Christians were not the only ones who came to America seeking religious freedom.

I wish someone would explain to me how "God" can be so threatening to people who don't believe in him anyway? It is like being afraid of...well...afraid of snipes -- they don't exists so how can you be so threatened by them?

-- Karen (db0421@yahoo.com), October 02, 2001.


"I wish someone would explain to me how "God" can be so threatening to people who don't believe in him anyway?"

It isn't God that's threatening, it's religious fundamentalists that believe that since God is on their side, they are perfectly justified in torturing & murdering their opposition. Historically, this is just as true of Christianity as any other religion. Now that's scary.

What I can't figure is why fundamentalist Christians can't see that the seperation of church and state is in their best interest, because if one religion is allowed to run the government, then it would be possible for another religion to boot them out and do the same sometime later. Do you all want to live under a government run by fundamentalist Muslims? 'Coz that's what you're courting when you insist that your religion should be the state religion.

-- Julia (charmer24@juno.com), October 02, 2001.


As long as we can get things off our chest! Ha! Christians seem to think America is a Christian country. America is NOT a Christian country but it is a country of ALL religons and All beliefs!! As long as we are a free people that is how it will always be.....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), October 03, 2001.

If you think that no one will be offended by praying to God, because all religions have a God, why don't we just all pray to Allah, or Yaweh, or Mithras, or Zeus, or Goddess - after all, a rose by any other name and all that. Didn't think so. I imagine that although the backbone of any one religion's practices may appear to be a "generic" higher power of some sort to those outside that religion, the many names of God are still a very personal matter and very proprietary to each individual sect or religion. Substitutions may not be made without conflict, and sometimes on pain of eternal damnation. Praying to "God" may be just as offensive to someone else as praying to "Thor" would be to a Christian, even though essentially both are merely the theonym given to the highest power in the pantheon (where other religions have "lesser gods" with "lesser powers", for these purposes the Judeo-Christian faiths' angels, prophets, and saints are considered to fill that same arena, and in many sects are worshipped in nearly the same ways, with supplications and alter offerings for attention and assistance).

As far as separation of church and state, well, our Constitution and the Bible both agree - render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. Sounds like good advice to me, no matter whose name comes out of the mouths of the prayerful.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), October 03, 2001.


I think you must have misunderstood. What I meant was that all religions are based upon God. When we pray, we just pray to whomever our God would be. That way we do offend no one.

Sonia, the "render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar and unto God what is Gods" is in reference to when Jesus was asked about paying taxes. He gave that statement in his answer of yes we should pay our taxes. In other words your giving money to the church does not exclude you from paying your taxes to the government. It had nothing to do with seperation of church and state.

-- Karen (db0421@yahoo.com), October 03, 2001.


Just an aside about saints being 'lesser Gods'. When I was in Suhopolje, Croatia I was taken on a tour of the large Catholic church there. In one nave was an altar below three figures. In the center was St. Florin, on one side Joseph holding the infant Jesus and I'm having a senior moment on who was on the other side. I was told St. Florin is/was worshipped since he is the patron saint of firemen. There is also a small nitch shine to St. Florin outside the firehouse across the street. Finally figured out why. The original houses in town had thatched roofs. If one caught on fire, flying cinders could easily take out other houses since they were built so close together. Thus, their prayers to St. Florin were for protection against fires.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), October 03, 2001.

It seems that the adults all got along fine in choosing whom to pray to in the national cathedral subsequent to the plane crashes. The key here is freedom. Each person is free to pray to whomever he wishes.

The problem is the issue of public schools. Just who do the children belong to? Parents may try to teach their kids at home that the Jewish God is the only true God and the Jewish religion is correct, only to have their teaching undermined at school, by the modern politically correct "tolerance" that is taught. Because politically corect tolerance does not say, you may believe that your religion is correct, I can put up with that." No, it says, you must not think (and especially not SAY!) that your religion is more correct than anyone else's. The same quandary faces all parents of any religion which bases its validity on the belief that their particular religion is the correct one.

We immerse the children in the teaching that all religious beliefs are equal in validity and value for at least 7 hours a day, and then think we are ensuring religious freedom in the generation to come? I dont think so. For we are doing the exact opposite. We are training kids to be intolerant of anyone who beleives strongly that his particular brand of religion is the correct one. This can only lead to the most intolerable conditions in future years for those who hold to the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the basic Christian belief of salvation through the blood of Jesus shed on the cross...

And so, because of the enforced school system, even though some are able to escape, this nation is being brainwashed into the intolerance of political correctness.

I propose that we do away with federally-run school systems. First of all, the Constitution does not give the government the right to run a publicly funded educational system for the country anyhow. (Individual States may, but the Federal Government may not.)

I would leave it up to the people to hammer it out among themselves, what they want to do as far as education. What will probably happen, is that differing religions will establish schools for the families who choose to follow each particular brand of religion. They will do this for the purpose of proselytization, which works wonderfully well in the school setting.

If this system would be allowed to be put into place by the people among themselves, we would see a marvelous thing come to pass. communities would begin to interact more among themselves. Children would be better educated. Fewer would "fall through the cracks" because parents would no longer depend on bureaucrats to stop the cracks.

As Ken says, the communists discouraged religion. But are we doing any better? It seems to me the system that is in place is discouraging *traditional* religion among the coming generations. By discouraging traditional religion, the state is encouraging certain brands of religion over other brands. And that is unconstitutional!

If this trend continues, this country will have but one conglomerate religion, where all gods and goddesses are equally worshipped, except for any god or goddess whose worshippers claim is the ONE TRUE GOD!

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), October 03, 2001.


Devout, practicing Catholic here. We DO NOT worship saints, angels, etc. Worship is reserved for God only. We ask the angels and saints to pray for us. It is a prayer request. So St. Florin is being asked to pray that this village in Croatia be protected from a devastating fire. This has got to be the most misunderstood Catholic theological doctrine.

-- vicki in NW OH (thga76@aol.com), October 03, 2001.

someone said that while the actual wording is Congress shall make no law ... and then said that there are laws in abundance about where if and how we can worship. Could you site some examples? I mean are there actual laws that say you can or cannot worshp in a certain way, or laws that take that freedom away from people?

I think having things like crosses on public buildings and even prayer at public functions or in school functions are seperate from the issue of freedom of religion/seperation of church and state.

And on a side note-the post about abolishing government schools reminded me that originally public schools were established in order to insure that children would learn how to read, so that they could read the Bible! I beleive the first state that had public schools was in Massachusets. (might be wrogn there). Sure is interesting how what started off being a complete blend of religion/schools/government has changed so drastically!

(though I stick to my view that I think th government does not need to have a say so in religion or education.)

the posts here have been so interesting and thoughtful. Though considering what forum this is...well I am not surprised :)

Sarah

-- sarah (heartsongacres@juno.com), October 03, 2001.


An example of a government prohibiting certain religious functions is the attempt to stop deadly snake handling. A religion would not be allowed normally to have say smoking marijuana as a part of their services (although I believe one Native American indian tribe is allowed the use of piote (spelling?). Human (and probably animal) sacrifices (part of some religious practices in the past), would definitely be prohibited. The government was not able to stop the Alyan Nation. It was only through a private lawsuit their assets were awarded to a couple.

A government can control the place of worship through zoning and dictate such aspects as the minimum number of parking spaces required, grading, storm-water runoff control, handicap access, fire doors and sprinkler systems, etc. Some churches have been stopped from expanding since they couldn't provide the increased number of parking spaces.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), October 03, 2001.


"Just who do the children belong to? " Children belong to themselves. They certainly aren't the property of their parents. While I agree that the federal government has no business mandating 'education' I think that the perception that "We immerse the children in the teaching that all religious beliefs are equal in validity and value for at least 7 hours a day, " is delusional. I doubt religion of any sort is even hinted at much at all in school, much less consistently indocrinated against all the livelong day.

"Parents may try to teach their kids at home that the Jewish God is the only true God and the Jewish religion is correct, only to have their teaching undermined at school, by the modern politically correct "tolerance" that is taught. Because politically corect tolerance does not say, you may believe that your religion is correct, I can put up with that." No, it says, you must not think (and especially not SAY!) that your religion is more correct than anyone else's. The same quandary faces all parents of any religion which bases its validity on the belief that their particular religion is the correct one. "

I disagree with your premise. The problem is NOT that you base your religion's validity on the belief that your religion is better for you than another, the problem is when you insist that your religion is better for SOMEONE ELSE!!, much less everyone else!! I emphatically do not believe that Jews feel threatened by what you call polical correctness in this regard. The Jews do not have a 'Jewish God', they have the same God as everyone else. They do not teach that their religion is better than everyone else's, and that everyone should subscribe to it. They teach their children the tenets of their inherited faith, and hope that they hold them as dear, and some parents will be broken-hearted if they leave the faith, its true.But by and large they send their children to public school in similar fashion as does everyone else,where they are usually surrounded by "Christians", knowing that religious faith is bonded to the home and family life, and is not so tenuous that one needs to live in fear of its demise from their surroundings.

The fact that some people are so terrified of their children being exposed to the prevailing attitude of tolerance for differences, sounds very like a complete lack of faith in not only the validity and appeal of their religion, but a lack of respect in the ability of their kids to make decisions based on who they are as individual and unique children of God.

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), October 03, 2001.


The main trouble with the animal sacrifice stuff (and I don't like it either) is not the fact that it is done in the name of religion, but that they often steal other people's pets (mere property under the law, but family to their owners). Every Halloween there is a warning to keep your black cats inside because of this stuff. If it is truly an element of their religion, they should be raising their own animals for slaughter, not stealing them.

The objection to killing animals is kind of hypocritical here, since, well, many of us here eat meat, wear shoes, use Elmer's glue, etc. There's not much difference between killing an animal for food (as just another choice of food not because you are truly starving), or a fur coat, or some ritual. Some butchering methods are probably just as cruel to the animal.

Just a thought.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 03, 2001.


Whew! Where to begin? Our country was founded on Biblical Christian Principle. Our laws were based on laws and principles found in scripture. Blackstone's Commentaries on Law were used and are Biblically based. The Bible and morals taught in the Bible were to be taught in our schools and someone warned that if it was ever taken out, our country was in trouble. Get a book of quotes from our founders and look up the quotes on education. Also, get material from Wall Builders in Texas. Check the internet for them.

The State has no business telling the Church what to do. The Church (not a particular denomination) has every business guiding the decisions of the State and should NOT stand for ungodly laws. We Christians should hold our leaders accountable because Jesus Christ, King of the Nations, WILL punish a nation for its corporate sins. I tremble to think what is in store for the USA because of abortion, open acceptance of homosexuality, adultery, among other things.

The public schools of today, as much as they might try, are not religious vacuums. It is impossible to have a religious vaccuum. Either there is going to be outright paganism, or there will be what we do have....humanism. It is because of this and other reasons that we homeschool our children.

And...my children belong first to God, then to my husband and I. They do NOT belong to themselves. I do not belong to myself. But if you check the laws of your state, you may find out that they don't even "belong" to you but to the State. I think Maryland law says that the children belong to the state.

-- LBD (lavenderbluedilly@hotmail.com), October 03, 2001.


Thanks Ken for filling in some answers about laws.

Another good one is Tax exemption. Would American churches be able to continue without the government giving tax exemptions? If there were no deductions allowed for contributions to church programs,what would be the effect on church income and programs? How would individual church members respond to annual taxes on their massive churches,cathedrals, and investments? The fact that the churches are not willing to risk such a tax is indication enough that without a FAVORED position (Government tax-exempt laws)in the political world and with economic structures,most would not and could not exist. How can you have separation of church and state when the governments own laws give you a reduced tax when you give to a private religous orginization? But that is the irony of religion in America,on one hand you have political/church alliance of government laws that protect religious institutions so they can perpetuate themselves but at the same time you have laws that say they cannot make known their message in certain areas or ways. When in fact there should be no laws at all if we were to follow the Constitution.

In 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that state laws covering drugs were sufficient to prevent use of peyote by members of the Native American Church. (I do believe it has been overturned since then)

-- TomK(mich) (tjk@cac.net), October 03, 2001.


A deist is someone who believes in God.

Accusing the founding fathers of being devout Christians is as ridiculous as calling any group of forty wealthy white gentlemen in a room devout...anything. If you take the time to read about these men you will no doubt find that some were saints. some greedy philanderers and most were somewhere in between.

What is difficult for me is to realize that despite any grandiose concepts of freedom of religion our nation basically is a protestant Christian nation...not mandated, but implied for two plus centuries. JFK's election was a big deal because he wasn't one us...just think how it must feel to be a Muslim in this open-minded society of ours right now. Or, worse, to be Hindi and feel compelled to cover your car in pro-U.S. graffitti for fear of being mistaken for one of them...

Separation of church and state, while not directly addressed in the constitution is a valid point on which to consider the rights of the people.

The issue of prayer in schools is a scab that may never heal, but bandaids and sure keep us from picking at it...better to debate the issue of government -run schools in general, there's something worth praying about.Perhaps a point that is being missed about September 11th is that a large part of the reason for what happened is that we are generally a Christian nation. Were we not would we still be propping up Israel against all odds?If we were a nation truly open-minded about religion would we not understand that for Muslims having American (infidel) troops still stationed on their holy land is blasphemy? Couldn't we understand that supplying arms to the Israelis and allowing their use in the overwhelming suppression of Palestines might be taken as a religious affront? Wouldn't we see that from any other point of view it would appear as if we had been funding, backing, planning and carrying out a series of fundamentally anti-Muslim wars and actions for decades, now? Hmm.

If it weren't for the concept of separation of church and state you can be assured that the Christian "leaders", (i.e. Pat and the boys) would have all those damned neo-pagans burned at the stake to save their eternal souls... ;) There's alot that our government does that I think is downright screwy, but on this one point I'm sure glad I'm an American...

-- gilly (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), October 03, 2001.


What a time to have pledged to not answer religious or political posts! ;-)

-- sheepish (WA) (the_original_sheepish@hotmail.com), October 03, 2001.

as a former pagan-turned Christian with friends of all different beliefs or lacking in any, KEEP RELIGION OUT OF SCHOOLS. This doesn't mean they can't have silent meditation to pray or do whatever they want in silence, but I don't want most people pushing their views of religion/Christianity on my children (I don't agree with most Christian's views, frankly). If you want your kids to have a religious education, send them to a religious school or HOMESCHOOL them. They are called PUBLIC schools for a reason. Folks would change their tunes if a wiccan circle was cast every morning to "protect and contain the power" raised within the schools every day....which is a religious practice for some people.

As far as this goes: I don't know if I am crossing the line here in using scripture to make a point, but here it is: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance" Psalm 33:12. If you're ..

from a previous post here, to the Muslims, Allah IS the LORD, and they don't have a separation between church and state in Afghanistan or other muslim nations. See where it has landed them?

In my Christian church, we fast, and fast a lot: all sorts of food restrictions on certain days of the year. How would folks like congress telling you no one should eat meat, fish, dairy or olive oil, nor drink wine, for 2 days a week? Try no sex for the great fast during Lent before Easter/Pascha! What if Congress feels that everyone who didn't practice this form of Christianity is illegal and should go to jail, or something. You'd be pissed off, wouldn't you?

The separation of church and state keeps everyone's religious views held sacred. Lucky for most of you, you get to do what you want and don't have to do things by MY definition of the best way to practice religion!

I think church and state MUST be separated, or if not, you all are going to have to give up sex, meat, fish, chocolate, olive oil, etc., etc., for laaaaarge chunks of the year (because of course my way is the ONLY way! that's just a little joke....I believe you really all have a right to do what you choose and is best for you!)

-- marcee (thathope@mwt.net), October 04, 2001.


First - Great post Gilly!!!

Second - a deist is a Christian in the sense that it derives from Christianity, and a Deist believes that there was a G-d, who set the universe in motion. However, Deists believe that G-d does not take an active part in the running of the universe - that after setting the world in motion, G-d does not respond to us, including to petitionary prayer.

Third - Speaking as a religious Jew, prayer in public places is a problem for me, because most non-denominational prayers aren't. They use language that derives from Christianity, rather than from Jewish law. Despite the fact that our culture likes to claim that there is something called "Judeo-Christianity", it isn't true. Jews have a different set of commandments, we read our scripture in a different language (Hebrew - the original), we have a totally different set of holy books, and we adhere to laws that Christianity does not. There is no good way to craft a prayer that is truly theologically acceptable to Jews (using english alone is a problem) and to Christians, much less to Moslems, Buddhists, athiests, etc... So whenever you pray in public, you are leaving people out. Sometimes, in moments of crisis, the goal is praying together, simply as a sign of common concern and togetherness - that's why people of many religions can come together, as in National Cathedral. But these are prayers of crisis, not suited to daily expression of belief.

Imagine a daily moment of prayer in a public school, that would be genuinely meaningful. How will it occur? Will we all sway back and forth, as Jews do when the daven, speaking in Hebrew? Jews do not (for the most part) pray in silence - and most prayers are sung. Will the Muslim children kneel and face Mecca, with shoes off? Will Quaker children stand in silence until their prayers are complete? Other Christian children speak or sing as the spirit moves them? Will Buddhists who bow to the figure of Buddha as the representative of the divine in themselves bring small statues? Catholic children bring rosaries? What word will they use? I cannot have the word of G-d inscribed on any transient object, so no prayer can ever be written on the board to help hearing impaired children. Will we all pray one day to Allah, the next to Adonai? And will the athiest children have to stand off in the corners by themselves?

When people ask for collective prayer, they really mean collective Christian prayer - prayer in english, based on a Christian model, speaking to a Christian G-d. Oh, a bland, sanitized version, without the word "Jesus" in it, but Christian none the less. Even a moment of silence is problematic - how long shall the moment be? What if silent prayer is not part of your beliefs? What if your prayers cannot be formed in the time allotted? I understand that people hope that prayer will bring us together and make us a richer and better people, but what it does is exclude. It makes obvious the most private and personal differences between us, and sets up children for conflicts. Does anyone really believe that the children of athiests will not be punished by other children for their differences? For every one of you who believes that back in teh good old days, everyone used to pray happily together, I can find someone to stand and speak about the abuse that children who believed something different suffered, about the Jewish children forced to speak prayers that mentioned Jesus, about native American children forced to speak of "one G-d" when they believe in several, of Christian children required to attest to something their religion forbids. We are not all alike. We do not pray alike. We cannot unify on that ground alone.

This is not a Christian nation, no matter how much anyone may wish it so.

-- Sharon in NY (astyk@brandeis.edu), October 04, 2001.


Earthmama, your post illustrated exactly what I was speaking of. In public schools, kids are immersed in your philosophy: that I feel MY religion is what is best for me, but YOUR religion might be better for you than mine would be for you. Poppycock.

To truely believe in the historical Christian religion, one MUST believe that his/her religion is the best one for the entire world. Example: Christianity teaches that all humans are sinners and Jesus Christ came to die for the sins of all mankind. The only way to heaven, according to the Christian Bible, is through Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself said so. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by ME."

For you to demand that I must submit my children to the teaching that other religions may be better for some people, than the religion I truely believe in, is to demand me to lay down my core religious belief! All other religions are false, because My Bible says that any man who dies without believing on Jesus, goes to hell. Therefore, it is freedom of religion to allow me to tell my kids and all people I can tell, that Jesus died for their sins, to keep them from going to hell.

You would deny me this freedom? You say I am intolerant? No, it is you who are intolerant of me. Because I refuse to bow the knee to your ideology, you dont want to tolerate my speech.

By the way, children do not belong to themselves, anymore than you belong to yourself. My kids dont even belong to me. The Bible says that they have been bought with the price of the blood of Jesus, and therefore, they belong to God. Dont you just hate my religion? I thought so. :^)

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), October 04, 2001.


Sorry to dissapoint you, daffodyllady, but no, I do not hate anyone's religion. What a silly concept that would seem! And for the record, I am very well versed in Christianity; I was raised in a fundamentalist home.

I can see that my words fall on ears that are closed and locked; I suppose there is no real point in continuing. But I find it interersting that you think someone is taking away your freedom to teach your children whatever you choose, which I find to be poppycock. What you do appear to be doing, however, is attempting to take away from your children the freedom to hear other messages, quite obviously based on your fear that they will reject yours. I am sorry for the pain this causes you; I know lots of people in that mindset, and it is painful for them.

I stand corrected about my statement concerning who children belong to: I should have said MY children belong to themselves, as do I, both very joyously and gratefully so.

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), October 04, 2001.


If this thread had been started by anyone other than Ken I bet that it would have been deleted long ago. Why don't we just change the name of this forum to "Ken's Kingdom".

-- Tired of Double Standards (RavenHeart44@aol.com), October 05, 2001.

Boy, has this been an interesting thread! I really don't have anything to say that already hasn't been said. I must say that I've enjoyed reading all the different thoughts though and complement Ken for starting this. (Is it safe to say "God bless"?) Have a good and safe weekend everyone!

-- Ardie/ Wi (ardie54965@hotmail.com), October 05, 2001.

Yes we are (or at least were) a Christian nation. References to God are in our official documents, our system of laws and freedoms and to some extent the structure of our government, our Holidays, monuments, and writings of our founders and early high-ranking officials. Sure, not every founding father was Christian, but they had no problem signing a document that references God.

Well. Things have changed; not many Muslims, Hindus, Objectivist, Humanist, etc. in those days. Fortunately, the words of the first amendment protect everyone’s right to express and practice those beliefs. And, the current supreme court interpretation agrees, well almost.

According to current law, the government cannot mandate a person to a certain religion or practice. This is correct. Students are allowed free exercise of their faith, almost without exception. This is also correct. Government employees (teachers, judges) are not allowed free expression while on the job because influence has been equated with mandate. This interpretation causes the first amendment to become logically untrue and a contradiction to itself. When this happens, ridiculous arguments become true. Example, George Bush cannot bomb during Ramadan because of the “separation of church and state”. He would be influencing people concerning the Muslim faith. Of course that makes no sense.

That’s why the only intent of the first amendment concerning religion that could possibly be true is that government cannot pass any law dictating or restricting religious expression. Restricting government employees; i.e. teachers and judges, from freely expressing their religion any time, any place, because it may influence someone, effectively suspends their first amendment rights while at work.

How is a judge or teacher influencing someone regarding religion different from influencing them in regards to other beliefs, philosophies or ideologies? Why is the display of a document by Aristotle, freedom and one written by Moses, a violation of someone’s rights.

Religion, just as any other system of beliefs should be freely expressed any place, any time; it’s the only way the first amendment works and doesn’t contradict itself. If religious views are restricted and possibly eliminated from the public arena, others will undoubtedly follow.

-- eyesopen (ronama217@msn.com), November 20, 2001.


"Yes we are (or at least were) a Christian nation. References to God are in our official documents, our system of laws and freedoms and to some extent the structure of our government, our Holidays, monuments, and writings of our founders and early high-ranking officials. Sure, not every founding father was Christian, but they had no problem signing a document that references God. "

Your statement infers that the Christian religion owns the concept of God. Sorry, not so. Pretty much all religions worship God, in some form or other, a supreme being(s) remaining a basic tenet. And an even superficial perusal of the beliefs of the founding fathers will easily show that they were certainly not professing Christians.

-- Earthmama (earthmama@yahoo.com), November 20, 2001.


Concept of God

The concept of God by Muslim, Jew and Christian appears to be the same (as well as others I'm not familiar with). Infinite, eternal, all knowing, source, provider, creator, and on and on. Based on that, I think any concept of God that does not contradict the concept of what God MUST be, refers to God. We can't have two infinite Gods, or else each would not be infinite. Any lesser god, nature, a carved rock, are things that we can destroy, and by definition cannot be God. As for the universe, all evidence and study reveals it was created, therefore also defies the definition of God. That's my critera. Since I am not a religious scholor, I can't say to what extent these religions contradict each other on matters on how we relate to God. But, I think that is where the difference exist. Anyway, the study of God is one of the most facinating and important courses of study one could undertake. Unfortunately, it has been reduced to a one hour exposure once a week. (No wonder so many misrepresent Him so often) Since this is (or may (for the sake of tolerence))be the most important decisions one could make, it should be part of public school. And, religious expression should be completely free, always, and we should not corrupt the first amendment to prevent it. Let's allow courses of study that are consistent with who we are: life, liberty, freedom justice... Let's engage our kids in the discovery of the nature of their existence as people and Americans. Give them something else to consider besides the many destructive things that overwhelm them these days. Allow the Bible, Karan(sp), Aristotle, Locke, Washington, Jefferson and so on. Lets not disallow some of the most brilliant writings because they contain references to God. Let's set aside political correctness and search for Truth.

-- eyesopen (ronama217@msn.com), November 24, 2001.


I don't know if this qualifies under separation of church and state, but gotta tell y'all this:

My son, age 11, played football on the Parks and Recreation team this year with 15 other players. We had a head coach and 4 assistant coaches, and held practice everyday except Wed. and Sunday (church days for most people here). One of the assistant coaches was a preacher. After each practice he recited a prayer which the boys all learned. The prayer was one of thanksgiving that no one got hurt and that all boys and parents would continue to give thanks to God. So I can't say that it was a "non-denominational" type prayer or not. I am not up on all the politically correct terms. Anyway, this went on without parent's consent or complaint for the whole season and was done right before games and right after games, etc. One day, before the game (the big playoff of the superbowl for kids!), the preacher had finished his "you go get 'em speech and play fair speech" and I believe he just plain forgot the prayer. He told the kids that they could go and get ready to play. All these boys, ages 11 and 12 said they couldn't go yet because they hadn't said their prayer. The preacher looked kinda embarrassed at the moment (him being a preacher and all), and the kids put their hands on top of his and they said their prayer. Then they went out on the field to play.

I guess it goes to show that the kids felt, from their point of view, and without any prompting from adults, that this little prayer was important, and important enough to stop everything and recite it.

We had all kinds of religions represented: Baptists and Methodists, Catholics, Non-demonination, etc. Not a single parent objected nor did any kids, nor did the county officials or referees. This little prayer was recited on county property in front of lots of folks before and after every game. Many people who didn't have kids on the team heard that prayer and bowed their heads at the appropriate moment. The kids won that particular game but lost the bowl game. Even after such a disappointing loss, they gathered together and said their prayer.

I know the county doesn't endorse prayer (none in our schools here) and I know most of the parents went to different churches and some had homeschooled children and some children went to private religious schools. But for one brief moment at each practice and each game, these kids came together and said a single prayer to a single God. Putting their racial, ethnic and culteral differences aside, they united to become this small team.

Here we are on this forum, with many religions represented (just like my son's football team). We have different cultures, and racial backgrounds, but I believe that most of us believe in a God - no matter what we call him/her. (politically correct?) We don't need the state or the government to permit us to believe or not. No matter how much legislation is passed prohibiting the word "God" in schools or public buildings, it doesn't stop people from believing. I find different religions fascinating as each has a single ultimate starting point (God, but have branched out to encompass other traditions. And don't bash me here, I know some folks practice witchcraft and worship Goddesses and Gods and that's fine for them, I'm speaking of tradional "God" based religions. There are some things that laws can't legislate and sometimes it takes a football team to remind us of that.

Disclaimer: no child was forced to pray (they decided as a group that was what they wanted to do after being asked). I know of no children who had to go into counseling, had emotional breakdowns, disowned their parents, stopped going to church, changed their religious belief or now hates their parents religion, by reciting their little prayer. We parents put aside our differences for this season, and I hope, for all seasons to come to allow our boys to be friends and team mates. Maybe that concept could expand outward?



-- Cindy (colawson@mindspring.com), November 24, 2001.


Reply to Cindy

Great Story. I'm inspired to know there are youngsters out there that are that well adjusted and committed to their faith and coming together as friends. Seems as though it was almost as important as the game(well maybe haha). My understanding is that they were not in violation of the law and the whole alleged "seperation of church and state" mess.

If the schools in your area are limiting kids from praying in school they are in violation of the law. Check out ACLJ website. The restrictions apply to gov. buildings and employees. But what a mess of contradictions that is. We swear in on the Bible, have references to God on our monuments and so on.

Let's hope there are more groups like you little guys. No one has done nothing but benefitted from hearing about God (excluding some odd-ball cult, but the true God). In fact, its plain to see the correlation between the increase in social problems and the first "successes" of the whole seperation movement. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Again, thanks for the great story. God Bless America!

-- eyesopen (ronama217@msn.com), November 25, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ