Texas Schools Board Rewriting US History

Hi,

Originally Posted by moxieman99 We have all heard that position many times before. Kindly tell us what the First Amendment means and requires, if not the separation of church and state?

It doesn't say anything about separation of Church & Sate.

So goes the pendulum.

Well the US takes so much pride about freedom of religion. How about the freedom FROM religion? I'm sorry but I really hate to be preached to, and proselytised. I almost hate going outside, and even answering my door for fear of some person coming to me and feeding me their religious drivel. Whatever doctrine they believe is fine by me, but honestly they should keep it to themselves. Whatever I believe or do not believe is none of their business (although they would like to claim it is), well guess what? Its NOT!

I am firmly for the separation of church and state, and my biggest fear is this country veering into more of a theocracy than a democracy. If I'm going to be forced to live in a dictatorship, I will gladly go for the secular, rather than theocratic one.


Do I believe in God given rights? Not really. I think George Carlin analyzed that rather well.

Originally Posted by onebuck It doesn't say anything about separation of Church & State.

My question was what the First Amendment means and requires, if not separation of church and state. You say that the First Amendment "doesn't say anything about separation of church and state. What does it say? What does it mean?

I posit that the First Amendment, due to its injunction against "respecting" an establishment of religion, or "prohibiting" the free exercise thereof requires, as a practical matter, separation of church and state: No organized religion can be favored or punished, and no exercise of any religion can be impeded.

So stop evading my question: What does the First Amendment mean and require in your book?

Hi,

Originally Posted by moxieman99 My question was what the First Amendment means and requires, if not separation of church and state. You say that the First Amendment "doesn't say anything about separation of church and state. What does it say? What does it mean? I posit that the First Amendment, due to its injunction against "respecting" an establishment of religion, or "prohibiting" the free exercise thereof requires, as a practical matter, separation of church and state: No organized religion can be favored or punished, and no exercise of any religion can be impeded. So stop evading my question: What does the First Amendment mean and require in your book?

I'm not evading your question. No where does it state in the U.S. Constitution that there is a 'separation of church and state'. If you are referencing the modern courts usage of Jefferson's personal letter to the Danbury Baptists then that was totally taken out of context therefore meaning.

In my understanding the 1st states that the government shall not favor a religion, regulate, restrict or interfere with religious expression. Look at all of Jefferson's letters not just the one to the Baptists. If you are to use someone's letters or information to provide the interpretation of the 1st then we should look at all of them to discern. We could look at other communications to show that the modern court is prejudiced by a poor interpretation of a portion of a letter from a framer to a concerned group to base this modern statement of 'separation of Church and State'. Not a valid nor intrinsic study of the U.S. Constitution whenever they excerpt portions of a personal letter to substantiate the argument by today's progressives.

One should look at other letters and diaries of framers to form a solid foundation of the creation for the 1st. How about 'The Congressional Records' June 7 to September 25, 1789? Which records the months of discussion & debates of the 90 Founding Fathers who framed the 1st amendment. None of the records shows that anyone made or mentioned the statement 'separation of Church and State'. Don't you think it would be logical to place their meanings in the records during this time? Not once! No one mentioned the statement during this session.

I stand by my interpretation and not the modern courts poor interpretation based on a personal letter not the U.S. Constitution.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 I posit that the First Amendment, due to its injunction against "respecting" an establishment of religion, or "prohibiting" the free exercise thereof requires, as a practical matter, separation of church and state: No organized religion can be favored or punished, and no exercise of any religion can be impeded.

Amen. Speaking as a Christian, the absolute last thing I want is for the US government to have anything at all to do with any religion. It is entirely a personal matter and the Government can keep it hands off. And in an attempt to move this thread back to its original intent and avoid the Rule #0 Nuclear Option, I sure as hell don't want religion taught in public schools. I can't think of a faster way to destroy Christianity than to subject it to public education.

Originally Posted by onebuck I stand by my interpretation and not the modern courts poor interpretation based on a personal letter not the U.S. Constitution.

I can certainly see refusing to use Jefferson's private letters. But you are evading my question. Specifically, I asked what the First Amendment means and requires if not a separation of church and state.

You have responded that it does not require or mean a separation of church and state. That is not what I asked. I asked what it does require and mean in your mind. State the positive: What CAN government do with respect to religion. What CANNOT government do with respect to religion? For example, can the government allow religious services on government lands? If it does, must it allow all religions? Can the government refuse to allow religious establishments from using its lands? Can the government tax religious establishments (I am not asking "ought," I am asking "can.")? Can the government shut down the church full of snake handling children? How about snake handlers, period? Can the government shut down the church full of men handling children (e.g. the Yearning for Zion Mormons)?

Think before you respond, because I will throw the Church of Satan example back at you and demand that you agree to spend precious tax dollars on protecting them from bigoted Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Whoever.

I agree that nowhere does it say "seperation of church and state" It says: 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.

What I see there is neutrality in the law. I'm not religious, but I do agree with anyone's right to practice whatever religion (or none at all) they choose, so long as it doesn't deprive anyone else of life, limb, or property or the freedom to do the same. The country has gone fundamentalist and that goes for the left and the right. I don't like the "You're going to hell if you don't listen to what I have to say!" crowd either, but nuts are nuts and they're in every camp. We're free to not listen, or to tell them "If you like the idea of hell so much you can go there now!" But to expect a freedom from even coming into contact with another person's beliefs is, I'm sorry to say, absolutely ridiculous. I don't like whipped cream either, so I don't eat it, but it would be quite silly for me to expect the government to somehow shield me from it when I'm at the store or a restaurant.

I don't think the government should be in the business of "protecting" people from being annoyed, and I think that is about as far as a rational person's reaction to attempted conversion should go.

Hi,

Originally Posted by moxieman99 I can certainly see refusing to use Jefferson's private letters. But you are evading my question. Specifically, I asked what the First Amendment means and requires if not a separation of church and state. You have responded that it does not require or mean a separation of church and state. That is not what I asked. I asked what it does require and mean in your mind. State the positive: What CAN government do with respect to religion. What CANNOT government do with respect to religion? For example, can the government allow religious services on government lands? If it does, must it allow all religions? Can the government refuse to allow religious establishments from using its lands? Can the government tax religious establishments (I am not asking "ought," I am asking "can.")? Can the government shut down the church full of snake handling children? How about snake handlers, period? Can the government shut down the church full of men handling children (e.g. the Yearning for Zion Mormons)? Think before you respond, because I will throw the Church of Satan example back at you and demand that you agree to spend precious tax dollars on protecting them from bigoted Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Whoever.

What part of;

In my understanding the 1st states that the government shall not favor a religion, regulate, restrict or interfere with religious expression.

doesn't represent my view? The first three words 'In my understanding' should indicate or point to my view that the '1st states that the government shall not favor a religion, regulate, restrict or interfere with religious expression'. Is this not understandable? My original point is that the modern court has misinterpreted the 1st when the court used a portion of a personal letter to base the modern statement 'separation of church and state'. In my opinion it was wrong to do that as the U.S. Constitution 1st amendment does not state anything about 'separation of church and state'.

If you want a brief then hire an attorney. I think before I respond! Don't need your belittlement either.

I'm sure a rant could be produced from such bait but I will not fall into that. Come back with vile attempts, I will debate but not lower myself to discuss something that doesn't matter to me. We have laws to prevent abuse of anyone in that fashion. Why not throw in the Catholics while your at it? That has been playing out recently. Should have been attended to years ago. Power prevented any attempt to eradicate!

We can continue to pick with things but it will do no one any good. It's to bad you think your the only one with a valid interpretation of something. So narrow minded.

Originally Posted by mjolnir http://www.schoolprayerinamerica.inf...urchstate.html "The metaphor of a wall of separation is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be explicitly abandoned."Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist

The first amendment, the first of the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Rehnquist was an idiot. This amendment give me the right NOT TO HAVE THE state prepare and deliver a prayer and require me to hear it, or to require me to attend or participate in ANY religious practice or service. It gives the FREEDOM OF religious practice without regard to the religion and an obvious corollary is the FREEDOM FROM religion. It clearly prohibits the US Government from requiring me to listen to any one pray in public. Further, the 14th Amendment includes the several states in this prohibition. I don't care what you call it, to me this is separation of church and state. By the way, Thomas Jefferson was NOT a Christian in any sense that we today know the term. He was a deist. Have you ever seen the "Jefferson Bible"? Look it up.

Originally Posted by Jeebizz Well the US takes so much pride about freedom of religion. How about the freedom FROM religion? I'm sorry but I really hate to be preached to, and proselytised. I almost hate going outside, and even answering my door for fear of some person coming to me and feeding me their religious drivel. Whatever doctrine they believe is fine by me, but honestly they should keep it to themselves. Whatever I believe or do not believe is none of their business (although they would like to claim it is), well guess what? Its NOT!

I agree. I also want to be free from telephone pests, from pop-ups on my computer, from billboards, from handbills on the front door, and from all other kinds of advertising.

I don't see it happening anytime soon, though.

I am firmly for the separation of church and state, and my biggest fear is this country veering into more of a theocracy than a democracy. If I'm going to be forced to live in a dictatorship, I will gladly go for the secular, rather than theocratic one.

My crystal ball is as foggy as anyone else's. I think the country is turning fascist, and I think we are approaching a phase shift in our society (which, I suspect, will be a very bad thing). What will we look like after the phase shift? I have no idea, but my best guess is some form of theocratic fascism.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Rewriting history ... make sure to read 1984 if you haven't in a while.

Yeah, I just read it in school. Rewriting history is a stupid thing. It is characteristic of totalitarian governments, not democratic governments.

Hi,

Originally Posted by DavidBassPlayer The first amendment, the first of the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Rehnquist was an idiot. This amendment give me the right NOT TO HAVE THE state prepare and deliver a prayer and require me to hear it, or to require me to attend or participate in ANY religious practice or service. It gives the FREEDOM OF religious practice without regard to the religion and an obvious corollary is the FREEDOM FROM religion. It clearly prohibits the US Government from requiring me to listen to any one pray in public. Further, the 14th Amendment includes the several states in this prohibition. I don't care what you call it, to me this is separation of church and state. By the way, Thomas Jefferson was NOT a Christian in any sense that we today know the term. He was a deist. Have you ever seen the "Jefferson Bible"? Look it up.

Bunk!

Show me the money!

None of the modern christian church can be compared to the church of Framers era. The Bible translations that we use today have been written to our modern language.

Thomas Jefferson was a Christen in every since, an intellectual person who happen to select verses from the bible relative to the life of Jesus. Too bad you don't get his reasoning.

You have the right to what is established but so do I. I can openly pray to God and no government official can stop me anywhere. That's what the Framers of the 1st have stated.

Originally Posted by DavidBassPlayer The first amendment, the first of the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Rehnquist was an idiot. This amendment give me the right NOT TO HAVE THE state prepare and deliver a prayer and require me to hear it, or to require me to attend or participate in ANY religious practice or service. It gives the FREEDOM OF religious practice without regard to the religion and an obvious corollary is the FREEDOM FROM religion. It clearly prohibits the US Government from requiring me to listen to any one pray in public. Further, the 14th Amendment includes the several states in this prohibition. I don't care what you call it, to me this is separation of church and state. By the way, Thomas Jefferson was NOT a Christian in any sense that we today know the term. He was a deist. Have you ever seen the "Jefferson Bible"? Look it up.

Does freedom of speech explicitly entitle me to not hear things I don't like? How can the same amendment afford me the right to express what thoughts I choose, while guaranteeing you the right to not hear it? It doesn't promise anyone earplugs. It says the government won't require you to practice a religion, and it won't stop you if you choose to or not to and then goes on to say that you may express yourself through words spoken or otherwise.

And yes I know that Jefferson took the bible and removed the parts he believed to be too supernatural and called it a good set of moral precepts.

Again I'm not religious, but I'm not a fascist either. I don't need protecting from your beliefs. Mine are strong enough to get me through.

You guys are totally missing the point of the first amendment. No it does not say in such words that there is a separation of church and state, and honestly I think some of the anti religious people have taken this way too far out of context which I think is the greater injustice. The Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND, it was not meant to be interpreted at all. The first amendment basically does this, it prevents any religion from becoming the state sponsors religion and it also prevents the government from interfering with the practice of ANY religion within the borders of the United States. This basicly means that no president or goverment offical can say that everyone in the united states has to be this religion or you will be punished.

This is at odds with what most religions want or believe that there rights entitled them too. If you want an example of why this was put into the constitution and why it is the very first amendment is because of the religious persecution that the British practiced during that time. The men who created this document really were IMHO smarter then most people living today. They may not have had internet computers, but they understood what was harmful for successful government, especially one so diverse as the US. Examples of why state religions are bad are easy to find, all you need to do is look at south America and some of the African nations, and Iran.

Being a person in the United States and living in this current time, I am appalled at the misuse of our founding document to lead the charge for special interest groups. Honestly I see nothing wrong with people praying in school or for there to be school funded religious groups, and I am in no way shape or form a super religious person, I haven't been to church since the 80's. Quite honestly the states of our nation really need to start telling the fed to shove it up there butts. States have the power in our country and always have had it. You must remember that many of the public lands / buildings are in locations that have these interests. Not allowing anyone to practice any religious or non religious stuff on public land is breaking the very law that they tout allows them to do so.