Randman's call for nonSecular education...

How is it pro- religion?I have a copy on a table next to me and often refer to it. Seems like more a model of how to set up a govenment than a religious document but show me the quotes and I'll be happy to change my mind.

It bans any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. That's about as pro-religion as you can get.

Can you cite any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion?It also prohibits any "law respecting an establishment of religion".

The Courts in the 20th century reinterpreted the establishment clause to refer to acts of public participation in religious expression rather than just banning laws referencing religion and so created, imo, a contradiction within the first amendment.

No, that's not correct.What the courts did object to is religious expression conducted by a governmental or quasi-governmental body, on the basis that such expression amounts to establishment.

Same thing, but I suspect this ground has been covered before. I'll point to things like Congress opening with prayer to illustrate the fact they didn't mean to prohibit things like Congress from opening with prayer, much less Christmas displays, and you'll come up with some quotes that even back as far as the 19th century, there were some arguing for a more forceful "separation."But regardless, the interpretation was now law until the 20th century, and as it stands, it is hard to imagine how they can claim Congress having a chaplain open with prayer in the name of Jesus fits with current rulings.

Holmes, I've been following fundamentalist Christian evangelists, televangelists and listened to thousands of sermons, et al for the last 60 years and I don't remember of any who would impose anything on anyone by law. There's a difference in the free exercise of religion in and out of government and mandatory imposition of religion upon the citizens.Since this nation, from the gitgo, has been majority protestant Christian, it has been an historical fact that Christianity has been freely exercised in and out of government without anyone being forced into any belief. When the republic was young and most were evangelical Biblicalists, the Bible and Watts Hymnal, et al were in all the schools, read and taught freely. As the people changed, that has changed as per the wishes of the people who have elected officials who have changed things. That's how it's suppose to work in a republic. The secularists have done the changing at the poles and by preaching their views. You're implying that televangelists shouldn't have the same rights to campaign for more religious input in government institutions such as the public schools. The secularists are winning out, so you people who are doing the whining about those who want more freedom to exercise religion as did our forfathers to be restored are the intolerant ones who want laws passed restricting freedom as per the Constitution and particularly the free exercise clause of the first amendment.Randman is right. You need to document where televangelist or others are advocating laws which impose any religion on anyone. When the majority votes to remove religious stuff from the public arena, then let it happen, but activist individuals known as judges who have usurped more power than the elected officials in these things are imposing secularism upon the majority who do not yet want to be lawfully denied the free exercise of religion both in and out of the public arena. If this persists, our republic is finished and the land of the free is no more. The minority then rules as is the case in so many ruthless looser nations.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

No, it isn't the same thing. That's quite different. That's congressmen voluntarily choosing to impose a religious service on themselves. They are not imposing it on anyone else.Not sure of the current status on Christmas displays. I think they currently are okay if private groups do the display and it is broadly holiday season related rather than exclusively christian.Sometimes the courts may have been too restrictive, but most of those problems have been corrected.

it's been a while, but i think they require either non-descript displays (ie: "happy holidays!") or equal representation (ie: "merry xmas, happy chanukah, happy kwanzaa."){added by edit}

quote:

---

The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). In the former case, the Court upheld the public display of a crche, ruling that any benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental." In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity (Luke 2:14 in the Latin Vulgate translation). At the same time, the Allegheny County Court upheld the display of a nearby menorah, which appeared along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, reasoning that "the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah...simply recognizes that both Christmas and Chanukah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society."

​

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia

---

equal representation appears to be fine. {/edit}of course, private groups can do whatever they want.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-18-2005 12:11 AM

---

אָרַח

No, look. Freedom of speech. They can clamor for whatever they want.But the Constitution says they can't have it. End of story. I think you're drawing a pretty thin distinction between the idea of forced conversion by violence or imprisonment and what most of the fundamentalists actually propose - that only Christians should be allowed the rights and privileges of citizenship in the US.Well, yes. Those are two different things. There's a slight difference between telling someone to worship your Christ or you'll put a bullet in his head, and making a law that says that only the Christians get the civil benefits of marriage, or can be elected to public office, or can vote, or the other conditions that the Christian fundamentalists revere in their heart of hearts.But either way its still coercion; still a government mandate to hold a certain faith or face the consequences. Pat Robertson doesn't believe that a non-Christian should hold public office. Bush Sr. believes that an atheist can't be a US citizen.You call it "secularism"? I call it "the freedom to worship as one pleases without the threat of ostracism and disenfranchisement." You want to worship in the public arena? Neither you nor Randman have presented any evidence that there's anything stopping you. But what you really want is the right to force others to worship along with you, or pay out of pocket for your worship services and religious materials, and I don't understand why freedom of expression gives you the right to reach into my wallet. Randman couldn't explain it to me. Can you?

You don't think the nations legislative body opening up with Christian prayer to guide their work is not sending a message of establishment of religion more than a Decalogue sitting on some grass or hallway of some governmental building?

You have a serious misconception about what fundamentalists propose.

No, I don't, and I sourced my allegations in the post. Do you deny that Robertson and Bush said what I said they said?Do you deny that federal tax dollars support religious - specifically Christian - social programs? Programs that include worship services as part of their work?Do you deny that fundamentalists rallied behind a judge who wanted to install a Ten Commandments monument on land that he did not own, to be upkept at taxpayer expense?Do you deny that churches benefit from municipal government and the protection of the fire department and police, without paying property or sales tax? And that therefore the burden of paying for the church's share of those services falls to all the other taxpayers, including many who do not attend that or any church?You never answered the question, Rand. Why does your religious expression demand that you reach into my wallet? And what in the Constitution do you think gives you the right to do so?

It does not in any way coerce the population into any religious observance.Being somewhat cynical, I do think that it is mainly for show, and has more to do with winning votes in the next election than with practicing religion.In the 10 commandments case that the court objected to, that can reasonably be seen as coercive.

No, but you are taking it out of context. Let me illustrate. Let's say I don't think a liberal ought to be president or hold elective office. That doesn't mean I think there should be a law banning them from holding elective office.See the difference? Federal tax dollars overwhelmingly go to non-Christian oriented private organizations. I hardly see how the fact they allow some faith-based charities to also compete for federal grants is wrong, and believe religious discrimination is wrong. You can't say secular groups or groups with non-Christian beliefs can get grants and then deny Christian groups who are doing the same type of work.If we listened to your logic, it would be wrong for Christian ministries to use the highways, or get public utilities. Well, I'll be. Never heard of such a thing. Can we just string those church people up? It's called equal rights. You get to use public services and so do Christians. As far as taxes, levying a tax on religious establishments could be interpreting as making a law or applying a law to religious establishments, and the idea is that religious organizations are under a separate sphere not subject to the state, and thus cannot be taxed.