How can the government tell us we can't pray in schools?

Question

or have the Ten Commandments in government buildings but yet they are trying to ban gay marriage?Isn't that breaking seperation of church and state?

Answer 1

1. The government does NOT tell you that you can't pray in school. It says that there cannot be organized prayer in school -- something I absolutely agree with. There are over 1400 Christian faiths in the US alone - plus many non-Christian ones, none should be established.

2. Of course, you are correct on the question of gay marriage Marriage is an issue of faith. Those churches that oppose gay marriages should not have to perform them. Those churches that support gay marriages should be able to perform them. The government should ONLY take care of civil unions, and those should be for any couple that is legally of age.

I have been seriously concerned about this for some time. Not because we particularly support gay marriage -- we've been together nearly 15 years, we don't need a piece of paper, we are quite happy thank you. -- Rather, I am concerned because the use of the government to enforce the views of one group of denominations (Christian and non-Christian) on another group of denominations (Christian and non-Christian) breaches the wall of separation and creates a de facto established faith.

I support freedom of religion. My ancestors fought in the Revolution. Seeing one of the core principles for which they fought destroyed, and a subset of faiths setup as protectors and controllers of the public morality AND as the de facto state religion, chills me to the bone. Seeing one of the basic freedoms guaranteed us frittered away, while the press only sees it as a struggle between secularism and religion which is PRECISELY WHAT IT IS NOT -- the entire debate is religious -- is not only chilling, it is appalling.

So I say, let each faith do what it believes.

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
Schenectady, NY
http://www.rebuff.org
[e-mail]

PS To Randy: Sophistry is all very nice, but its a joke. Freedom of religion is exactly what it says it is, nor is that the only relevant portion of the text. "There shall be NO establishment of religion" is far more germane to the conversation you are attempting to have, though much more difficult to soften to something that might forbid the very thing your side is trying to do. Likewise the commandment for no test for government office. Don't fool yourself. If you are a religious fascist say so -- don't try to pussy foot around and change the intention of the founders (my grand father 12 times removed fought and died as a Colonel in the Revolutionary army -- Colonel Ebenezer Reynolds -- only historic sign in my home town celebrates his life and death), in order to fit the extremism of your modern views. The founders were mostly deists, with a healthy sprinkling of atheists and Unitarians. Saying it isn't so doesn't change history any.

Answer 2

Maybe there needs to be more research on the phrase "Separation of Church and State". And, why not go to the source of that comment. It is not in any founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc), but was a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church, assuring them that there would not be a State run Church, as the Church of England was in Europe.

One of Jefferson's quote's on issues such as this was:

On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed., letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.

That is precisely what has happened with this phrase, a phrase most people couldn't even find in historical documents if they wanted too.

So the issue is not an issue of Separation of Church and State. Just as marriage is not ordained by the state. Certain rights are created by men and other rights are our God-given rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, those God-given rights are to Life, Liberty, and property. If you hold to a Biblical World View, then marriage is an institute created by God (in Genesis 1, 2, & 3), and the State has no jurisdiction to supercede that God given right.

The truth is, there are 2 reasons I see for the need for gay marriage.

1. Our tax laws and insurance laws may favor married couples more than non married couples (not really sure if this is true, but may be driving some of the debate)

2. Gay community wants to be legitimized as normal behavior, and getting a state to sanction that through the right to marry is seen as a victory for gay rights.

Either way, we have given way too much control to our Federal Government. Our form of governnment is built on the premise that the power goes from the people to the county to the state to the federal. Today, we have it completely backwards in that the power goes from the Federal to the State to the County then to the People.

That should concern all citizens of the United States.

Answer 3

According to what I have heard, the gov't tells us not to pray in schools because they are considiring EVERYONE in the school. Not just christians, but the other religions and the atheists. You are not gonna go to prison if you're gonna pray by yourself. What they are trying to emphasize is, everyone is not required to pray together as it was years ago. As for the banning of gay marriage, I have no say about it. Maybe we could do some research. I think because of the Majority Rules thingy. Their are any people against gay people. If the antigay outnumbers the progay people, it will be enough to ban gay marriage. But I still think they don't have the right to keep us from doing what we want. As long as we are not hurting anybody.

Answer 4

Public schools are funded by the government; religion is a private and personal matter.

Many copies of the ten commanments were placed in or near courthouses as part of a promotional tour for the Charlton Heston movie. They can be perceived as nothing other than a religious document (check out the first one).

Marriage is a civil contract, although a wedding may take place in a religious setting. No separation issue in this one.

Answer 5

There are a LOT of ignorant people running this country right now and they are face with things they didn't bother thinking about before. They don't seem to know how to separate chuch and state or the need to. There IS a difference and I think church is church and state is state. Gay people should be allowed to legally get married. Who cares if it's not about religion? It is about LOVE and the legal rights and benefits. People swear on the bible to uphold the law - NOT the other way around.

Answer 6

Well, the whole notion of separation of church and state (which is figured out indirectly from our country's historical documents, as another poster mentioned, rather than being an actual specified "law") was to prevent government from endorsing a specific religion.

It was not meant to keep religion out of government, it was meant to keep government out of religion. Our country had just broken from England, partly of "freedom of religion" principles, and we did not want our government to infringe on us as England had.

Anyway, the government does not want to endorse a particular relgious viewpoint. This is hard in some cases, because all laws are based on SOMEONE'S idea of morality -- which are derived from religious belief. You can't totally divorce religion from law, in that sense.

You can pray in school. The school just will not force people to pray -- they offer the option to pray during an official time early in the day, and people can of course pray by themselves, silently, throughout the day.

You can't post the Ten Commandments in a state building, since it reflects one particular faith -- although the morality of those 10 commandments are pretty common throughout many faiths. Again, the government does not want to endorse a religion.

Marriage is tricky because it is both a legal institution and a religious institution. Your church marries and certifies you; you also need certification from the government. So now you're in a gray area. The government does not want to exclude people, yet it is also not allowed to tell religions who can marry and who cannot.

Religiously, gay people should be able to marry as their faith decrees, and they should be able to get religious recognition if their faith approves it.

The argument is whether the *government* should be forced to recognize some types of unions. Hetero marriage was founded partly to provide a secure foundation (family unit) that protected the rights of children; reproduction naturally occurs between genders (not same-gender).

Obviously with the increase in adoption and artificial insemination, it is now possible for homosexual couples to have children, so that puts a twist on things.

I think another issue is that, if marriage unions between people other than men and women are approved, there is no longer any line to be drawn -- any sort of legal living arrangement can technically be justified (polygamy, people/pet, whatever). All moral issues aside, figuring out the legalities of such things is a major headache.

Yes, some government officials are driven more by religious belief than by impersonal measures such as I've described, but these are still issues that need to be addressed somehow.

While some people see it as a copout, the "civil union" idea would at least provide couples with important rights (to receive inheritance from their long-term partners, visiting rights in the hospital, and so forth) while these other issues are being addressed.

Answer 7

its simple! the seperation of church and state no longer gets the votes in for the politicians my dear. post 9/11, the world has become more aware of their own frailty. the frailty comes because we have seperated the church and state for far too long.
the only way to hold a tight reign on the people's mind is to play the "religion" or "god" card now. because now, our sense of mortality is at its peaks so we would lap up any transcendental explanation for things......

you are right, the govt has no rights to do all these but they will always have the blanket immunity of national security or national interest - the dont ask dont tell policy. at the rate we are going, i think marx is sooo right about the role of religion in a society...... its disappointing......

Answer 8

actually the phrase seperation of church and state isnt in the admendments or decleration. The phrase that IS in there is something along the lines that church cannot rule state, meaning church(religion) cannot control goverment. As for praying in schools, well thats not the place to bring in something that is different for each person.

Answer 9

Because the schools are goverment buildings. and you can pray to your god while in there, just don't do it out loud.

The whole thing revolves around the teacher organizing the prayer. that is what should NOT be done. If a student wants to pray for the morning, they can do that at home. But the separation of church and state means NO PRAYING IN GOV buildings. and I am glad I don't have to endure having people around me praying. it offends me.

tom

Answer 10

Actually the amendment reads Freedom of religion not freedom from religion it is about the government not being able to tell us where or when to practice our religion and about the government not having any control over religion. It is to protect our freedom to practice what ever religion we choose. And the government not being able to tell us how to do that. Unfortunately the ACLU is attempting to sway the public policy and has convinced the public that the eroding or our freedoms is for the greater good. We are living in a time when our freedoms are being eroded by the very organizations that we are trusting to protect them.