We were discussing Mike Huckabee ....

http://www.thoughtvent.com/forums/The-next...e-USA-t674.html

... and rather than pulling the topic away from the intended discussion of 'Next President', thought I'd start a different thread here to discuss how people feel about having a person such as Mike Huckabee or anyone in power than would be likely to be against religion and state being kept separate in schools, etc.

- - -
Should be the correct link now - thanks so much catching it, Zarathustra.

This post has been edited by Mara: Nov 3 2007, 04:56 PM

Mara: I don't think your link is what you wanted.

It is my firmly held belief that any support for a particular religious sect, or for any particular religion, or even for religion itself, in publicly funded schools is not only unethical and unconstitutional, but a serious threat to individual freedom and liberty of conscience. I also hold that such support undermines the goals of education.
Z

This post has been edited by Zarathustra: Nov 3 2007, 11:06 AM

The First Amendment has been so mangled, trampled, abused and twisted for nearly a century that I doubt if very many people are even aware of what it says.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

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.

That simply means that the congress is forbidden to pass any laws establishing a government-mandated religion, nor may it pass any laws forbidding the free practice of any religion(s). And that's all it says. No where does it say that prayer, etc. is forbidden in publicly-funded institutions (like, for instance, the government).

The founders of this country were wise men, indeed. The Republic of America was designed so as to protect the freedoms of the individual. Those men saw the dangers inherent in allowing the state to either mandate, or forbid, certain religious practices. And rightly so. The school-prayer issue itself is the result of First Amendment protections. It allows Far Left extremists, who would like nothing more than to see religion in any form forbidden, to scream out against prayer in school, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. And it allows Far Right extremists to call for all but the practice of "Christianity" to be abolished. Sadly enough, too many people actually listen to the BS from both sides. The Far Left gets more attention, since they're united in their cause, while the Far Right can't even agree on what Christianity is.

If you stop and think about it, forbidding religious practices or observances in schools is a violation of the First Amendment, since the First Amendment forbids the passing of laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Personally, I believe that religious observances in schools are not only protected by The Constitution, but that religion(s) should be taught in schools. Juniors and Seniors should be given the opportunity, if they so desired, to take courses in comparative religion*. Courses that compare the beliefs and dogmas of not only the various Christian sects, but of all of the major religions (and non-religions). Not promoting any one over the others, simply providing the opportunity to learn about them all**. For how can one make a decision concerning which, if any, religion they wish to practice with no knowledge of them but what they were fed by their parents while growing up?


* These course would, of course, have to be strictly elective.

** Yes, I'm an Atheist. I also possess what very few in America seem to any more - common sense. If such courses had been available to me in High School, I'd probably have taken them just to see if there was something that I'd missed that would cause me to reevaluate my own beliefs. (Who knows, maybe I'd have become a Hindu, or something. )

That's the part that fascinates me.

Individual freedom. If parents in a school district want religion part of their children's school system, rather than 'forcing' all children to 'accept' one single religion as the one and only 'right' one, surely an hour a week could be set aside for children of all religions to discuss their particular one, etc. And those that have no religion can simply have study-period or spend an hour in a library. If nothing else, surely this would teach children tolerance and understanding towards others that don't share their same belief, while still holding firmly to their own.

But rather than that, it appears individual religious freedom within public school systems is not wanted - it's a 'one beliefs' system that is wanted in public schools.

And I think this below says it well:

(Quote) "Public schools play a central role in American life. They mold children into good citizens by teaching the core values of pluralistic democracy: freedom and tolerance. Our public schools must therefore be hospitable to students of all faiths and no faith. Public schools should teach an understanding of and respect for diversity, as well as a spirit of acceptance and inclusion. They should also help develop citizens who respect our nation's legacy of religious freedom and the separation of church and state.

Contrary to the claims of opponents of church-state separation, public school students enjoy very broad rights to act in accordance with their religious values and to practice their religious beliefs while at school. From words of grace whispered quietly before a meal in a cafeteria to prayer groups gathering before school at the flagpole, every day all over the country, students engage in constitutionally protected religious expression on public school grounds". (Unquote)
Source:
http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom...mer_schools.asp

And some examples of loosing freedom in the name of religion within schools:

(Quote) "Blatant violations of church-state separation continue to take place in our public schools. Among the more recent such violations have been the following:
· In Alabama, a family of Jewish children was repeatedly harassed after complaining about the promotion of Christian beliefs in their public schools. One of the students was forced to write an essay on "Why Jesus Loves Me." At a mandatory school assembly, a Christian minister condemned to hell all people who did not believe in Jesus Christ.

· Elsewhere in Alabama, officials in the DeKalb County school system blatantly disobeyed a district court ruling that forbade religious activity in school such as the broadcast of Christian prayers over the school public address system and the distribution of Gideon Bibles on school property. The court has now been forced to issue an injunction to compel the schools to abide by its earlier ruling.

· A Jewish student at a public school in Utah was required to sing religious songs and participate in Mormon religious worship activities as part of a choir class. After she voiced objections to these practices, the student was humiliated in class by the teacher and became the target of anti-Semitic harassment by her classmates". (Unquote)
Source:
http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom...ons_schools.asp

First off, I am a Christian; however, I agree with the First Amendment in that the state should not establish nor prohibit any religion. That includes Christianity. My reasoning: I have found that when we Christians try to ram our religion down other's throats, they don't like it too much; in fact, they will hate you even more. People are more likely to accept you and your beliefs if you're not a jerk about it.

One thing I like about being in college, is that they offer you religion classes, but they are electives; meaning that you take as many as you want, as few as you want, or none at all. This way, no one has to take a religion class if they don't want to.

MattV is correct in that there are two extremes in America today: Christians who want to ban any religion but Christianity from school, and those Left-wingers who want to ban Christianity, and religion in general, and force their anti-religious views on school children. Can't we follow the Constitution and have a middle ground? Or is that asking too much?

Surely if one truly believes in any religion and wishes others to know what it is, the most practical (and truly testing) teaching is simply to "teach by example" - simply live your own beliefs to the best of your ability and those who have eyes to see or are searching for a meaning in their lives, will see, hopefully appreciate, and come to you to ask "why are you so happy/nice/honest etc..... this obviates the need to thrust your beliefs at some someone who really does not wish to know...?

It has been my experience that Christians don't do that. "Christians", though, are notorious for it.

This is another symptom of the ills that have been allowed to afflict our society. There doesn't seem to be a compromise solution to anything, that's acceptable to anyone, anymore. People are expected - no, it's demanded of them - to choose from one extreme or another. The concept of a compromise solution seems to have been pushed aside in favor of black/white, all/nothing, right/wrong. And this is seen in all aspects of society, today. And such simplistic thinking simply isn't viable in the context of modern society.

People living in third world countries where they are literally without any choices would relish the opportunity to wallow in the wealth of freedoms that some here find so constricting.

So true! At least here, we have the freedom to question the decisions of those in power, and maybe make some changes!

The Constitution being a rather brief document, its authors expected that matters would arise in the future that might not be neatly subsumed under one of its provisions, and gave to the Supreme Court the authority to interpret them on those occasions. Now even the strict constructionists sitting there understood that it was useful to look to contemporary writings in their effort to divine the intent of those authors when considering the implied meaning of the Constitutional text.

We must remember that ratification of the Constitution was not a sure thing. At the time, there arose a lively debate among the citizens not wishing to supplant one tyranny defeated at such great cost, with another of their own choosing. The Federalist Papers were, for example,an effort to convince its readers that every effort humanly possible was made to strictly limit government and secure the individual liberty of the citizens. Many decisions of the Court, then, make reference to the Papers, and to other contemporary writings, such as the journals and notes of the debates held in the convention, not to mention the Declaration of Independence.

Many states, when submitting their ratification, included a list of amendments to insure that the central government would not be despotic, with the understanding that ratification was conditioned by the speedy inclusion of these safeguards. In respect to religious freedom, the addendum of the state of N. Carolina (August, 1788) is representative of these State's feelings:

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favoured or established by law in preference to others.”

It is clear that the States were not only concerned with the establishment of a state religion, but any kind of sectarian favouritism by the Central government, and incidentally based this right not on any on any Biblical reference, but on the equal and natural right of every man.

I suggest that a reasonable interpretation of the intent of separation of church and state should include these considerations.

Z

This post has been edited by Zarathustra: Nov 7 2007, 01:53 PM

First, "separation of church and state" is a phrase coined by extremist Leftist atheists that want nothing less than the abolition of all religion in this country. The concept doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution.

Second, How much "interpretation" does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" need? How much simpler can that be?

This post has been edited by MattV: Nov 7 2007, 01:48 PM

Whether the abolition of religion is a good thing, or a tenet of "Leftists," is another question entirely. My purpose in quoting the religious caveat exemplified in NC's ratification was to help explain the terse text of the Admendment, namely that it is not merely a matter of what is commonly called separation of church and state, but of the Central Government in any way FAVOURING one (or any) religion or sect in any way. Religion, as I interpret it, is to be left to the free, individual choice of the citizen, without coercion or influence of any government. The same freedom should be extended to those who choose NO religion at all.
Now the question before us is whether or not certain activities in schools tend towards depriving individuals of such a religious choice, or are to be left free from the organised influence of government interference---of governmental support however subtle--- that might unduly sway or direct this choice thus taking away from the individual the responsibility for it. I think THIS interference is precisely what is mean by "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
If one is to live free, it does not mean live free,but only as a Christian--- or die.
Z

So any governmental mandates or prohibitions of religious practices, in schools or any other publicly owned buildings, is a violation of the First Amendment. No?

Beautifully said, Quietmike!

And I feel that way when a group of parents decide it's "not fair" that their children can't have the Lord's Prayer said over the PA system with all children repeating it, these are the same parents who would likely have a fit if instead of the Lord's Prayer , for instance, a Moslem prayer was used each morning. And worse, at least for me, they are teaching their children to be intolerant of others.

If we as adults can't be tolerant, our children are unlikely to be. And our poor world fights on. Sad sigh.

That is "beautifully said" by someone who lives without a faith in the preciousness of the life we have.

I'm glad my local firefighters are not so.... apathetic... in their respect for life. Otherwise they might have reasoned... "But it's early in the morning, maybe we should just let these folks sleep in just a little while longer" or "maybe they'll notice the flashing lights", instead of dragging a mom, two infants and my sleeping butt out of bed at 3:15 AM so that we wouldn't get cooked in our sleep.

Maybe thats how much some of those who would talk to you about their beliefs, value YOUR life. Even though you'd rather sleep in ignorance of their faith. Maybe they feel obligated to save your life even though you'd rather that they just leave you alone, all warm and cuddly wrapped up in your blanket of apathy toward them. Maybe your hatred of the hypocrisy you've seen among their ranks makes you feel that they're all worthless. Maybe you're just too stubborn to give up your personal fallacies like believing in "cockroaches that eat ONLY plastic" even whey such things go against all scientific knowledge of today. Even when they're called "close minded", they keep coming back and giving us an opportunity to lean about their respect for OUR lives.

Personally, I enjoy the conversations. I have respect for the fact that they've taken the time to try and "save" me. Anyone who values my life and that of my family, my friends and my neighbours has my respect.