Religion in school

[F_R_O_G]

So um, how could we both be right? That’s impossible. What’s also hard to do is debate with someone who doesn't show their sources. i bet you read it diffrently but everything thats been quoted here shows that there should be religious freedom in schools.

Anyways not to say that Jefferson was not a strong advocate for religious freedom but you are just taking quotes whereas the first amendment and the 14th amendment clearly allow religions expression... read it for yourself http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

 

[painted wolf]

yup, the government(state or federal) can not tell me how, where, or who to worship... nor can they establish a goventmental sponsorship of religion. To do so would infringe on my life, liberty and persuit of happyness... nothing you have pointed out says that the government can do so.

Amendment I

Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGON, 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.

um... what part of 14 are you talking about? Nothing in it says the government(state or federal) can establish religon in school...

Expression is not the same as control... I express my religion every day... I don't force it on others.
Freedom is just that, freedom... if you enforce religion in shool you take away that freedom. The system alows for private religious education so long as the non-religous parts keep up with federal guidelines... so realy there is no need for religion in Public shcools...

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

how is this read to be pro-church in government run schools?

wa:-do

 

[F_R_O_G]

read through the topic then get back to me

 

[civilcynic]

I've been reading the posts on this subject and would like to interject a little food for thought in historical terms. It is a misconception that the founding fathers were Christians...that is, that they believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Many of them considered themselves Deists which is a belief in a Supreme Being but not Jesus as the Son of God. Others were atheists at the time the Constitution was written... John Adams comes to mind.

 

[painted wolf]

FROG-
what is there to read? I have read up on this subject and can't see where you are getting your ideas...

civilcynic-
Thank you for pointing that out... :clap:
There were also Secular Humanists and Agnostics among our 'founding fathers'...

some quotes from them (other than Jefferson as he has already been covered.)

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." Thomas Paine

"...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution." George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." -- Benjamin Franklin, _Articles_Of_Belief_and_Acts_of_Religion_, Nov.20, 1728

"But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legaends, hae been blended with both Jewish and Chiistian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.--John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_, John A. Haught

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822

"In the circle of my acquaintance (which has not been small), I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian," Ethan Allan

and another two fun ones :lol:

"[T]he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" United States Treaty(treaty of Tripoli) (1796-1797)

"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420

my sources, I encourage everyone to check them out as the people who founded our country were smart and more intersting than many people think.

http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html
http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_founders.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

ok.. just one more Jefferson quote:
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 370

wa:-do

 

[F_R_O_G]

two of them were probably not Christian, they certainly weren't atheist thou, the rest were. Don’t let your secular education get in the way. While running for President, Jefferson had to defend himself against charges that he was an atheist. Why? Because there were laws throughout the country at that time that did not permit atheists, or anyone who did not practice Christian morality, to hold office. Thomas Jefferson: Champion of History (pp.299ff.) so would you think that most founding fathers would have to at least consider themselves Christian. They are just not the same Christians that were in Great Briton.

The reason that we have the first amendment is so that the president does not become the supreme head and governor of a national church. They simply do not want the same restrictions as great Briton.
"The one [our president] has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other [Great Britons king] is the supreme head and governor of the national church!" http://federalistpapers.com/federalist69.html ALEXANDER HAMILTON


"to abolish both the royalty and the aristocracy, and to overturn all the ancient establishments, as well in the Church as State;" http://federalistpapers.com/federalist71.html ALEXANDER HAMILTON

This explains that we do not want the church to be involved in making laws it says there shouldn't be an establishment of the church being in control of the laws instead of the state. So everything short of a church acting like the state is ok, so there is no reason for some people to use the intercom to say a prayer.

 

[F_R_O_G]

i started posting befor you posted yours painted wolf last time... so heres my responce to you.

alright you asked for it....

"'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
It clearly says that congress cannot make any law that favors one religion over another and that congress cannot make any law that restricts people from fallowing there religion. Once again it says Congress has nothing to do with religion being in high school it's up to the sates."

"most came to the "New World" to be able to practice religion wherever they were and not be restricted in any way. when the Supreme Court said a student couldn’t pray aloud in school that is clearly going against what the pilgrims wanted."

"the constitution supports atheism over everything else. it's not just religion its moral beliefs, atheist have a set of morals too; or are moral beliefs not part of religion?"

"What do you think the first amendment refers to? Congress the government the states? It only refers to congress. That means any and all other governmental afflictions are not bound in ANY way to the first amendment and are clearly allowed to have a state religion, but that would be a good idea.

No part of the government has any place to restrict religion being practiced in school by a student. By no means am I saying religion should be forced to any student who does not want to be taught a religion, in the course of a lesson a teacher should be allowed to quote a verse or say something religious that is already extended to all atheist beliefs."

"The treaty of triply that you mentioned may look at first as an official statement that we are not a christen nation but once again you have miss quoted the Treaty of Tripoli. The treaty makes it VERY clear that this nation is a christen nation. The proof surrounding my argument is so extensive that I would not be able to post it here... so I have provided a link http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5"

your quote simply said that we are not the same christens that hated the muslims in Europe.

"I’m so glad you brought up the letter from Tomas Jefferson... first we must note that it is a letter, not an official document, that’s not to say this does not support freedom of religion, it does, just that it does not hold the same weight as the constitution. You did miss some parts "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem." his intent when he talked about a wall of separation is solely in making a law. This once again states that there should not be any restrictions on religion, nothing to do with this country being a christen nation. The words directly fallowing your quote of the letter is "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." this makes it even more clear that the wall is meant only for congress restricting the rights of man. The entire letter http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=82"

"It is easy to quote parts of a document to make it suit your perpuce, I can say "congress shale make no law" so therefore congress should not be able to make any laws. That is clearly a misquote of the 1st amendment but if taken as fact without knowing the surrounding circumstances it can be very dangers.

You are obviously an atheist and you are allowed to believe what you do. But as soon as you try to say the constitution only supports atheists, you’re trying to push atheism on others. It supports freedom of religion."

"Our constitution as I said before is based on Christian principles. I thought we were talking about freedom of religion in schools. As far as the government making laws, the only laws that they can make are ones that agree with the constitution and since the constitution was made with Christian principles (not Christian religion) it should more or less fallow Christian morals."

this kindof sums it up...

"The reason for the first amendment was to prevent the government from forcing people to follow a religion that they did not want. This is far from ever happening. So why would we take this amendment to be a restriction? Isn’t it called the “Bill of Rights” not the “Bill of Restrictions”? Can one individual restrict the free exercise of another?
If a secular club can use the school intercom, the school bulletin board, and post up signs at school, then why can’t a religious student government use the intercom at a football game for prayer?
“Total separation is not possible in the absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.” The constitution does not “require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.”1
This one sentence line in the Bill of Rights could be the most debated part of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I fear that this has been misunderstood by many people into thinking that there is a wall of separation between the entire government and everything that has a religious meaning. That is not so. It is only referring to Congress making a law, and does not refer to anything dealing with the state, public areas, or schools. In other words, only Congress is forbidden from making a law that supports or hinders a religion; all other relations are up to the people that are involved.
The fourteenth amendment also refers to the creation of a law; the state can’t get involved in anything that is not challenging its own laws. All three clauses in section one restrict the government from making laws. “No state shall make or enforce any law…”, “Nor shall any state deprive any person…”, and “Nor deny to any person…” The state can’t create any laws that would infringe on our free exercise of religion.
In a recent court case Employment Division v. Smith (1990), it restricted religious rights saying that our free exercise is a “luxury” that cannot now be afforded. Congress refuted this ruling with the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” in 1993. This act clearly allows religious freedoms that were granted to us before Division v. Smith. Furthermore, it made a test that must be passed in order for any exercise of religion to be prohibited.
If an exercise is…
1) in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest (It can’t be used by the government to promote anything.)
2) the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest (It can’t be used to stop the government from doing anything.)

These two tests place the burden of proof on the government so that any other exercise of religion that is not considered will be left alone.
In another recent court case Marsh v. Chambers (1983), it dealt with a challenge to the Nebraska legislature about opening up its sessions with a prayer offered by a paid chaplain. They ruled that a paid Chaplin is constitutional. They did not use the much-criticized Lemmon test but looked at the original intent of the first amendment.
Benjamin Franklin stood before the Constitutional Convention and said “God governs the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall without His notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?”
1) Lemmon v. Kurtzman,1971 2) The two test have been ruled unconstitutional, but they can still be used to show a double standard"

hows that for spoon fed?

 

[Runt]

Frog, you should try quoting yourself on things that others have not already proved incorrect.

Congress has the right to make laws that affect all other levels of government, and the Supreme Court decides whether or not these laws are allowed, and has deemed that religion shall NOT be taught in schools.

Atheists have morals, yes, but they don't claim that their morals are the "will of God", and their set of morals are more liberal than those of your average religion. And atheism is not a religion, so you can't say that congress is respecting an establishment of religion when it respects atheism.

Who cares what the founding fathers wanted? We are not the same people as the founding fathers. Do not suggest that we go back to our roots unless you are willing to embrace EVERYTHING about our past American society, including slavery and the inability of women to vote.

If Congress cannot make a law respecting an establishment of religion, then it can't make laws respecting religion being taught in schools. That would be respecting an establishment of religion by allowing them to have a say in the education of our children (when religious truths have NO evidence behind them to suggest that they are really TRUE, and therefore have no business being taught).

The Treaty of Tripoli and Jefferson's letter have no say in whether or not our country is a Christian nation. They are the opinions of one (or a small group) of men and therefore carry no weight.

 

[F_R_O_G]

Runt didn’t we already agree that prayer before a football game is legal?

Anyways as I said before we are talking about is the Supreme Court was right in not allowing religion in schools. The Supreme Court misinterpreted the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that says I can't practice my religion in school.

Whether you believe atheism is a religion or not does not matter. It’s about a set of morals, by the government only allowing atheist morals they are favoring one set of morals over everybody else’s.

I care what our founding fathers wanted and so does painted wolf and I thought you did too. It’s important to know what they wanted so that we can interpret the constitution the right way. Runt if I found something wrong with what you do does that mean everything you do is wrong, certainly not.

I never said I wanted the Christian religion being taught in schools, I just want accommodations. Btw do you really believe religious truths have "NO" evidence behind it? One religious truth is you shouldn't kill anyone, so I guess since it's a religious truth we should just throw it out...

With The Treaty of Tripoli and Jefferson's letter you guys were the ones that brought it up... now your saying there not that important? That’s ok the first amendment is just fine by itself.

 

[painted wolf]

first off the constitution and the supreme court does not prefer atheism... it simply said that churches have no place preaching in government institutions... like schools... :roll:

No one said you couldn't worship... you just cant preach in school....

you can pray (quietly/noislessly) before a test, a meal whatever... just dont expect to have anyone elce do it too... you cant lead public prayer in school....

No one said you can't practice... you just can't preach or impose your religion on others....

just like the consitiution and Declaration say... :killme:

wa:-do

 

[F_R_O_G]

why?

why?

why?

why?

why?

and where?

 

[painted wolf]

we are a democracy not a theocracy.... :roll:

we are a country based on equality and freedom, to establish governmental religion is to create a second class citizenship....

besides whos religion would you use?
Eaven if you chose a Christain faith there would be fighting ammong the christains about who's flavor it would be... It would be a garenteed recipie for civil war...

we already have accomidations.... so whats the big deal? 8)

here....
Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGON, 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.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

wa:-do

 

[F_R_O_G]

ok now go back to my post titled "i started posting..." and look for my responce...

 

[painted wolf]

It clearly says that congress cannot make any law that favors one religion over another and that congress cannot make any law that restricts people from fallowing there religion. Once again it says Congress has nothing to do with religion being in high school it's up to the sates."

see 14th ammendment it clearly talks about states rights and human rights being protected from bad state laws.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"most came to the "New World" to be able to practice religion wherever they were and not be restricted in any way. when the Supreme Court said a student couldn’t pray aloud in school that is clearly going against what the pilgrims wanted."

first off, the pilgrims have nothing to do with this... they wanted to kill witches too remember? :lol:

"the constitution supports atheism over everything else. it's not just religion its moral beliefs, atheist have a set of morals too; or are moral beliefs not part of religion?"

The contitution doesn't support atheism over everything elce.... it supports freedom of religious practice as well as the freedom to not practice. And no moral beliefs do not depend on religon... if you use morality then it would be more accurate to say we follow Jewish (if you use the 10 commandments argument) or to go to the root of law the code of Hammorabi which would make us babalonian.... :roll:
its a moot point.

. By no means am I saying religion should be forced to any student who does not want to be taught a religion, in the course of a lesson a teacher should be allowed to quote a verse or say something religious that is already extended to all atheist beliefs."

then you are forcing a child to learn a bible verse and your agument is faulty...

"The treaty of triply that you mentioned may look at first as an official statement that we are not a christen nation but once again you have miss quoted the Treaty of Tripoli. The treaty makes it VERY clear that this nation is a christen nation. The proof surrounding my argument is so extensive that I would not be able to post it here...

your argument is based on a tenuious reading of a plainly put statement.

"I’m so glad you brought up the letter from Tomas Jefferson... first we must note that it is a letter, not an official document, that’s not to say this does not support freedom of religion, it does, just that it does not hold the same weight as the constitution. You did miss some parts "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem." his intent when he talked about a wall of separation is solely in making a law. This once again states that there should not be any restrictions on religion, nothing to do with this country being a christen nation. The words directly fallowing your quote of the letter is "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." this makes it even more clear that the wall is meant only for congress restricting the rights of man.

no it makes it clear that government has no place to intefear... otherwise why would he have passed the same laws in the state constitution...
The importance of such letters is to give a full understanding of what they ment when they wrote the consittution... it shows thier firm belief that religon should not be mandated by the governments.

"It is easy to quote parts of a document to make it suit your perpuce, I can say "congress shale make no law" so therefore congress should not be able to make any laws. That is clearly a misquote of the 1st amendment but if taken as fact without knowing the surrounding circumstances it can be very dangers.

your agument is silly... its just as easy to misrepresnt and try to blurr the issue with falce cleverness. :roll:

You are obviously an atheist and you are allowed to believe what you do. But as soon as you try to say the constitution only supports atheists, you’re trying to push atheism on others. It supports freedom of religion."

I'M NOT AN ATHIEST, I NEVER SAID I'M AN ATHIEST... I don't know where you get this from. I not christian but that doesn't make me an atheist... I NEVER SAID THE CONSTITUTION ONLY SUPPORTS ATHIESTS you are misrepresenting my arguments and prove that you have neither read them nor have any intrest in discussing things based on anything but a few repeatedly quoted works by others.

"Our constitution as I said before is based on Christian principles. I thought we were talking about freedom of religion in schools. As far as the government making laws, the only laws that they can make are ones that agree with the constitution and since the constitution was made with Christian principles (not Christian religion) it should more or less fallow Christian morals."

if I may be allowed to use anothers argument on this one:
For one thing, it is clear that there is no obvious and unequivocal statement in the Constitution which specifies the importance of Christian principles or morals - at no point is Christianity in any way singled out as basis for anything which the text claims
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_con_xtnprin.htm

ps.. Franklin was a Diest and did not believe in Jesus Christ therefore he is not a christian... and his movement to open the sessions of the constitutional congress with prayer were ignored... no session of the C.C ever opened with prayer... seems like they started the seperation early.

wa:-do

 

[F_R_O_G]

Two things have come to my attention in the last week

The first one being that the first amendment say that congress can not support a single religion, but it may support a religion as long as it gives support for other religions too. So for example a teacher could teach that there is a God since there are many, many religions that believe there’s a God.

The second point that has come to my attention is that churches first started the schools in America, and so for a very long time they were a government funded Christian organization. And they found nothing wrong with that.

see 14th ammendment it clearly talks about states rights and human rights being protected from bad state laws.
Section 1.

The fourteenth amendment only refers to the creation of a law; the state can’t get involved in anything that is not challenging its own laws. All three clauses in section one restrict the government from making laws. “No state shall make or enforce any law…”, “Nor shall any state deprive any person…”, and “Nor deny to any person…” The state can’t create any laws that would infringe on our free exercise of religion.

The pilgrims have everything to do with this they were the ones that made this country. No, most of them did not want to kill witches. Most of them were the ones that cried foul against the people that were after the "witches"

The constitution doesn't support atheism over everything else.... it supports freedom of religious practice as well as the freedom to not practice.

o, so them what are we arguing about? if the constitution supports "freedom of religious practice" then why can't practice my religion? believe it or not this is a Christian nation and for that reason we have freedom of religion.

then you are forcing a child to learn a bible verse and your augment is faulty...

how am I forcing someone to learn a bible verse? that makes no sense, plz explain.

no it makes it clear that government has no place to interfere... otherwise why would he have passed the same laws in the state constitution...
The importance of such letters is to give a full understanding of what they meant when they wrote the constitution... it shows their firm belief that religion should not be mandated by the governments.

huh? where? how?

your augment is silly... its just as easy to misrepresent and try to blurr the issue with falce cleverness.

good, I’m glad we agree, so lets try not to misquote anybody...

I'M NOT AN ATHIEST, I NEVER SAID I'M AN ATHIEST

o good, but I’m sure you can see that this was a quote from somewhere else and so I never meant to call you something your not. but just curious, what do you believe in?

whether you believe that the constitution is made by Christians or not, that constitution supports freedom of religion as we have already agreed.

no session of the C.C ever opened with prayer

um, I don't think anyone else reading this topic will agree so I’m not going to waste another min of my time.

 

[painted wolf]

you forget that there are many religions that don't believe in A god ... and so it would be against the 'fairness' and 'freedom of worship' to teach about 'god'....

they did find problems with churches running schools wich is why we now have the current public education system... if there was no problem with solely chuch run schools then why would they bother to make non-church schools?

I'm not saying you cant practice... but I dont think that 'practice' should include prostilitzing children in the protected learning environment of the school...

by using bible quotes in classes you expect the child to know the context of the quote...ie that it is bliblical and further as it is being used in a classroom-learning environment then the implyed obligation of the student is to understand the quote and if possible use it themselves....

I'm a native american... and I try as much as I am able to follow the ways of my ancestors...

"Trouble no one about thier religion; respect others in thier view and demand that they respect yours." -Tecumseh

wa:-do

 

[F_R_O_G]

Congress can't make AN establishment... meaning it can't make one and only one establishment. and that’s just dealing with separation of church and congress, there is nothing in the constitution that says that there is a separation of church and state.

what happened with church schools is they were not getting enough money for education so the government decided to step in and give these Christian churches money to run the schools, slowly after a few decades the government took responsibility of the schools that were stated by churches. now I understand that right now the states control the schools but back then there seamed to be no problem with church and state working together.

in school and you start learning about Gorge Washington it would be impossible to have a complete education about him without taking about what he believes because that influenced almost all of his desitions. and if you talk about what he believes someone would have to tell them how he came to what he believes. I’m not saying there should be a class that teaches only one religion but that you can't leave things out if they are related to the curriculum.

let me explain what I believe, we should not have one government run religion and we should not have a religion that runs the government, like in England during the 1700s. but we should be able to have limited involvement from either side to the other side if and only if it has reference to what is already being done.

 

[painted wolf]

now your trying to hard to read into it... I don't think the founders were being so obtuse when they wrote it.... if that was what they wanted they would have stated it plainly and not left it for us to argue the definition of AN...

also what happined is that they realized that there were more than just christians in america... very early on there were jews and Diests and Humanist and hosts of other 'non christian' religions.
Eventually the very idea of church run education began to loose its luster... so much so that the major universities began to secularize and get rid of thier religious restrictions...

While I don't disagree with mentioning that people in history had particular religous beliefs, I don't think that should be an excuse for teaching thier respective religions. Remember that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were both Diests... shall we teach Diesm? What about John Adams?
What is important about the faiths of our 'founding fathers' is that they were intelligent enough to set aside thier faith differences in order to make 'a more perfect union'....

I believe that we have the best of the limited involvement... ie, churches don't have any say in the running of government.. but thier followers can say whatever they want and freely run for office.

if religion is such a non power today then why do politicians spend so much time courting them?
Look at the 'religious right' and the 'christian coalition'....

wa:-do

 

[F_R_O_G]

I’m not readying anything into it, don't you think that if they didn't want any religion at all to be recognized they would have said "congress shale make no law respecting any establishment of religion" I think they chose there words very carefully and meant EXSACTULY what they said. besides the fact is it says congress and not state...

Ben Franklin "if a sparrow can not fall without Gods notice, can a nation rise without his aid" many of the founding fathers thought there was a God... I not saying we should teach a specific set of beliefs but there are many people who try to fallow one book but have different beliefs from the same book. infact I will go so far as to say that when they talked about a religion they were talking about different Christian religions, but I don't think I have a strong augment for that, though I have looked at everything and found it to be true.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

>>"congress shale make no law respecting any establishment of religion" I think they chose there words very carefully and meant EXSACTULY what they said. <<

EXACTLY what they said? And what "exactly" did they mean by "no law respecting any establishment of religion"? There is a lot of room for interpretation here, which is what the Framers intended (see also the vague language with which they write the rest of the Bill of Rights- what exactly defines a search and seizure as "unreasonable" anyway?)

>>besides the fact is it says congress and not state... <<

This is the first ammendment of the Bill of Rights, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to states and the federal government alike.

And isn't it good that this applies to state as well as federal government? Aren't you glad, after all, that NO level of government can restrict your freedom of religion/speech/press, conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, deny you a fair and speedy trial or a state-appointed lawyer, or try you twice for the same crime?