What Happened To Separation of Church and State?

Remove all ads!

So, Concurrent Resolution 155 has been approved WITHOUT objection, and has been sent to the House. Here are some nice little excerpts:

so now I'm told to seek direction from God. Great.

and I'm being told to become closer to God.

and now I'm being indoctrinated into Christianity.

These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution. This most certainly does NOT do that. I wonder how many of these congressmen are actually going to pray and fast on that day?

read it in its entirety:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:sc155es.txt

 

You can't be serious! Is this for real?

 

It certainly appears to be real. If it is, the wording is a disgrace.

Sing with me now: "In the land of the free, we get told when to pray" (And who to pray to).

Beats most of the crap turned out by the European Commission hands down.

Wow.

 

What the **** is this ****ing crap? you can't be serious! Talk about denying me my first ammendment rites! if this gets through the House then I'm not certain what I'll do. I'm not even going to get in to how wrong this little reselution is it's akin to to shredding the constitution.

 

(1) I can't see that it is Christian. It doesn't mention Jesus, Christ etc.

(2) It won't last. They have to know it. I suspect it was a way for them to hold something up to some of their supporters as a way of proclaiming what moral and upstanding people they are but if passed it will be challenged in Federal Court and the Courts will strike it down.

Maybe akin to the 10 Commandments being posted in the Supreme Court of Alabama's building. The Chief Justice is either an idiot or knew that he would be forced to remove them by a Federal Court (he was) but the political gain by being able to say, "look at me, I'm an upright man" outweighed the eventual certain defeat.

I hadn't heard of this, I would be interested if someone could link where it says there was no objection to it. That's the surprising thing to me but I couldn't verify it from the link given.

 

Please do us all a favor and go back and read the actual wording of the Bill of Rights. Please? Pretty please?

If there's going to be a debate on this (which seems like a clear violation of the 1st Amendment), then I don't want to spend pages explaining to people that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution or its amendments.

 

Heh, a few months ago Bush said atheist didnt have absolutely any rights in the US, since its a nation under God

[Oooops, inny bitty mistake, its not a few months ago, more like 1987 and it´s senior (never said it was junior, but still) anyways for those who are still interested here the interview:

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

Journalist:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
Bush:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
J:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
B:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
J:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
B:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

/Me shoots guy who told not whole story to me

]

[ November 20, 2002, 21:07: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

You got it Shralp - everyone take some time to actually READ our constitution and its various amendments.

 

Do we have a site to go to that we can verify the wording on this? Not that I doubt your sources, I just want to verify...
And if it is true, then no, there's no way this can last. They will have so many groups up their collective rear ends that they won't be able to sit down. No matter WHAT the national mood happens to be.
[Okay, forget that first part, I just saw the link. Ha ha, don't mind me, nothing going on over here...]

[ November 20, 2002, 17:47: Message edited by: dragonjewel13 ]

 

I never heard Bush say that Morgoth, I really doubt he did, I would like some support please.

Shralp, the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. It isn't uncommon for the jurisprudence respecting the establishment clause and free exercise clause to be described as "seperation of church and state." This stems from the the way our founders, who wrote the Constitution, would discuss the issue as well as case law. The Courts have made it clear that Congress (the government more broadly) can not make laws respecting one type of religion over another OR favoring religion over non-religion.

The above proposal favors religion over non-religion since it advocates the worship of a god while non-religion may argue that there is no god. Since the Courts have stated that for Congress to favor religion over non-religion is unconstitutional and since the Courts get the final say on interpreting the Constituion..... ipso facto etc. etc.

[ November 20, 2002, 17:49: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

No one's rights are being violated. No government official is going to come to your house and check to see if you are fasting and praying. No tax money is being used to support this fasting and praying, except the money wasted on the salaries of the various congress critters. Just a question how many people complaining about this, plan to celebrate on the 28th? You know the day of Thanksgiving. A holiday insituted to remind people to give thanks to God. All in all America would be better off if the congress passed more of these laws and fewer Homeland Security measures, or does the thought of data mining by the feds fill you with comfort?

 

It doesn't matter if rights are being violated or not, because it's clear no one's rights are going to be violated. Even the people who disagree with this, do agree that it won't last. But it's the thought. The very idea that irks people.

You have to sit back and ask yourself, what is motivating them to get so riled up over something such as a few words that obviously won't effect them?

 

With all due respect, spoken like a member of the majority.

 

Laches,
You have yet to state how the current proposal would violate your rights. Are you forced to pray or fast? Are you forced to admit that there is a God? Are JBTs going to haul you to prison for ignoring this proposal? I ask again are you going to celebrate Thanksgiving? How about Christmas? Should government employees be given paid days off on those two days?
Why get upset about this when the feds are planning on collecting a file containing every piece of electonic data you create, from credit card purchases to e-mail to web sites you visit. It seems to me that you are complaining about a head cold while you are having a heart attack.

[ November 20, 2002, 18:46: Message edited by: Claron ]

 

The proposed resolution violates the constitution. I'm sorry if you don't like that but it does. The Courts have spoken, it is a violation of the Constitution for the government to support the establishment of religion over non-religion

From one of the most important cases in American history, Everson v. Board of Education:

Notice where it says the government can't pass laws which prefer one religion over another?

So, it sounds like your admitting it's unconstitutional and saying, "so what, it doesn't hurt enough so we should just let this unconstitutional law go." That is the argument of someone in the majority. If you are in the majority you can't understand how it is disconcerting to have a law passed, unconstitutionally, by your country, which holds your way of life and your belief system to be invalid. Imagine Congress passed a resolution stating there is no god and all prayer should cease promptly. Imagine that there was no punishment if you kept praying. Now tell me with a straight face there wouldn't be outrage. Of course there would be, because when the government passes a condemnation on your entire belief system and way of life, and does so unconstitutionally, outrage is understandable.

Here is how Thanksgiving is defined by Encarta:

It doesn't say that you have to pray. It doesn't say you need to give thanks to a god. It says that you are thankful of what you have.

Christmas is more problematic in the sense that it is a government sanctioned religious holiday. Sort of, the most recognizable figure with regards to Christmas in the U.S. is probably Santa in my opinion.

I would like to point something out to you though. Do you see what your argument is? The implication is that because the governnment does unconstitutional things in one area other unconstitutional things should be okay too. That's silly. Those holidays you mention in no way, shape, or form go to show the proposed resolution is constitutional.

Here is a challenge: Instead of slinging mud and talking about the nefarious motives of those opposed to the resolution, develop a sound argument for why the resolution passes constitutional muster.

 

Because nonreligion violates my belief in religion.
By the way who are you thankful for on Thanksgiving if not God?

[ November 20, 2002, 19:13: Message edited by: Claron ]

 

Why do people have such a problem with this? Because one of the basic rights that the United States was founded on was the freedom of religion. It's not word for word in the constitution, but c'mon, read some basic US history. The majority of settlers that moved to the US did so because they were persecuted for their religious beliefs. Now, granted, a majority of them ALSO found someone to persecute for their religious beliefs, but the premise that many people run under is the freedom of religion. And it may not be the most important thing that we have to ***** about, but we ARE. Accept it. And think about it this way: Okay, I've decided to become Wiccan. So I no longer believe in God...I believe in Goddess. And if this new resolution passes, I want the wording to reflect and honour that fact. No, wait, I worship Krishna. I do not refer to him or Shiva as my God, I refer to them as Krishna, or Shiva...I want this new resolution to reflect THAT fact. So, in order to make everyone happy, it's going to have to go into "whatever deity, spirit, or entity you happen to worship, etc." And it's stupid. If I want to take time out of the day to sit and thank WHOEVER for the fact that I am alive, then that is my right to chose. Whether I would get arrested for praying, worshiping, fasting if this resolution passes is a moot point...It shouldn't even be a question.
Oh, and who do I give thanks to on Thanksgiving? Well, it sure isn't the God that you're referring to. And while I normally don't feel the need to be annoying and pretentious about that fact, for the sake of this argument, I'm going to be. There's no one who's going to have the right to tell me that the person I pray to is referred to as GOD. So there.

 

The way I see it is that there is no law forcing you to celebrate this holiday, you could just catch up on schoolwork or office work at home if you wished. Also, it advocates no specific God or religion, so it can be interpreted any way you want. In regards to an atheist becoming angry at this law, i see no point in that. If you have no belief system it can't be violated except by your own free will. If you were forced to adopt the praying position, and close your eyes, it wouldn't mean anything. This doesn't mean anything to atheists, except one more holiday out of school or work. I could understand the objection if Jesus, Buddha, Allah, or some other religious figure was named, but it is nonspecific. Why should you care? Your argument seems to be that your belief system is being violated, but you don't have one so that seems to be impossible.

 

If this resolution passes what will the government and Congress try to pass next? No thanks, this whole thing is wrong, wrong, wrong because of what it violates. I don't want the Feds designating days like this ever because it could lead to much worse things to come. There's more reasons why I object but I won't get in to a rant about that.

 

All of you who know your philosophy, was there ever a philospher that commented something to this effect:

People make easy puppets, and often they don't even know it.

If not, then somebody should have. Wake up folks.