Banning prayer in public schools and school events.
Banning religious displays and/or symbols on public property.
Removing any mention of the Christian religion from everywhere but the churches themselves.
How does “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” get twisted into freedom ”from” religion?
2007-07-20 05:53:38 · 18 answers · asked by Iceman 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Very few are answering the question.
I'm just curious how many justify their viewpoint when much of what some are "trying" to do isn't the apparent intent of the amendment.
I singled out the "Christian" religion because those who are most fanatical about getting rid of religion just about everywhere are mostly talking about the Christian religion. They seem to be exceedingly more tolerant of most other religions.
My intent was not to say these things "were" banned just that fervent attempts have been made several times in several places around the country, some with success.
Is there really anything wrong with people of all religions being allowed to display/dedicate symbols/sayings/quotes etc in public places?
And as for those who think I'm a fanatic you couldn't be further from the truth. I just can't stand anyone twisting the constitution into saying something it doesn't.
Now let's see if you guys can answer the question without bastardizing it's meaning.
2007-07-20 06:50:38 · update #1
Because liberals and the ACLU have perverted the true intent. I find it sickening.
2007-07-20 05:59:29 · answer #1 · answered by The Real America 4 · 1⤊ 9⤋
I should think that for a reasonable human being it should be clear. As I answer this question, please note that we are talking about religion, not God.
On your first question: The prayer said at school or school events may not be the way I or others pray, or, others may choose not to pray at all. Why should we be subjected to the impression that the school, hence government, favors that particular religion.
Regarding your second question: Again, religious displays on public property would appear as if the government advocates that particular religion.
On the third: I know of no law that prohibits the discussion of religion on private property where the owner accepts such discussion.
On the fourth: It translated into government will remain separate from religion. It is not the government's business to advocate a specific religion, or dogma, or support religion in any way.
Religion is a personal matter and should remain so. Religion is MAN's interpretation of what God wants.
A common misconception has been that just because the American government is, and should remain, separate from religion, that man seeks to keep God separate from State. That cannot be done. God can, and does, go wherever he or she wishes. God is a divine concept whereas religion is a man-made concept.
Let's keep religion separate from State. The Taliban and others have found out it is a bad idea to put the two together. We should learn that lesson, too.
Let people practice their dogma the way thay wish, but outside the halls of government. God will keep his watchful eye on the United States. The Right-Wing, Holier-than-thou Bible thumpers don't need to tell us what God thinks. We can determine that, and have the right to do so in our own way.
You want the same right too, or? Would you prefer that we tell you what is right, or wrong, or how you should worship?
I didn't think so.
2007-07-20 06:49:44 · answer #2 · answered by James S 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
1. Prayer isn't banned from public schools. If your kid wants to pray, he or she has every right.... However, if the teacher or another school representative were to lead a prayer, that would equate to the school sanctioning one religion above others.
2. See 1.
3. This is a public forum.. not a church, and there's mention of the Christian religion everywhere. (especially in the religion forum). People come to my door all the time trying to tell me about various derivations and denominations of the Christian religion. My home is not a church... so I fail to see your point here.
4. The first part "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that the government will not endorse one religion over another. Putting up the idols of one religion (let's call it 'the ten commandments') at the governments expense, or in a government building shows preference and endorsement of that religion. Pretty simple
2007-07-20 06:07:02 · answer #3 · answered by Fretless 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You can pray anytime you choose in school, but if you were to allow prayer in school (and in school events) you would have to offer a prayer in every religion (not to mention that atheists would probably take up arms against this).
Similarly, a religious display would have to include every religion (not just the majority) and again, atheists could probably take that to court and win as well.
There is no "removing any mention of Christian religion" from everywhere but churches themselves. Public colleges offer courses examining religion, etc. etc.
To sum it all up, separation of church is a necessity to enjoy the freedom (albeit limited) that Americans enjoy everyday. To establish something such as a national religion, or to give favor to one religion over another (even if the religion given favor to is the majority) would be liken to discrimination.
2007-07-20 06:05:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of religion means one is free to practice or not practice any religion of their choosing. That is how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" gets twisted (as you say) into freedom from religion. Nobody can force another to be religious. Nobody can force another to not be religious. Simply, it must stay in the private sector.
2007-07-20 07:05:01 · answer #5 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"Banning prayer in public schools"
prayer is not banned in public schools, just leading the class in prayer or mandating prayer is
"Banning religious displays and/or symbols on public property"
this is seen an an endorsement of religion/of a state religion "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
"Removing any mention of the Christian religion from everywhere but the churches themselves."
no idea what this was supposed to mean, Christianity is mentioned in plenty of places and is frequently mentioned in public schools under the context of history and/or comparative religion/philosophy
2007-07-20 06:00:47 · answer #6 · answered by Nick F 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
The government cannot endorse a religion, so the rule of separation of church and state takes precedence. You can still pray or display religious symbols, but if the government or a government entity does so it is violating the principle of antidisestablishmentarianism.
You only mention Christian symbols, what about Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, etc...?
2007-07-20 06:06:14 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Because requiring a Jewish child to say a Christian prayer violates that child's right not to have the government "establish" that the Christian religion is better than the Jewish religion.
When a government displays a religious symbol, it establishes that the symbol has importance so therefore establishes that the religion associated with the symbol is better than the religions not displayed.
The easy test is this: If all of the displays you want were replaced with Pagan, Muslim or even Satanic displays would you feel your rights were violated? If so, then your display violates the rights of people that do not share your beliefs.
The government has NO business being in anyway involved in religion. Just remember this: unless you are Catholic, you are in the minority. Do you want to be forced to accept that religion?
Freedom of religion does guarantee the right to practice any religion or to choose to practice no religion.
2007-07-20 05:58:52 · answer #8 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 8⤊ 2⤋
Because allowing these things mean the state is supporting them which equates to a state supported religion. Why can't you religious fanatics keep religion in the churches or should it be like a Muslim country where they have religious police on the streets arresting people for not praying 5 times a day. Lets do this lets make all the prayers in school pray to Allah and have the Koran on all our public buildings. Schools are for teaching facts not ancient mythology and public property is just that not just for your voodoo magic.
2007-07-20 06:05:25 · answer #9 · answered by region50 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Well, the 1st Amendment has been trampled on in recent years. Basically, religion should not be banned, nor especially recognized. Religious groups probably should not be tax free either, since that is special treatment.
Hate "Thought" Crimes legislation is probably unconstitutional, because physical crimes, not unpopular views, should be punished.
The entire Bill of Rights is being warped by revisionists and is in great jeopardy these days.
2007-07-20 05:58:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Simply because this isn't a Christian theocracy!
If you want to have Christian symbols in the government then you need to have all religions that are recognized as well. That includes Scientology!
If you want to say, "One Nation, Under God then the announcer needs to say, One Nation, Under Satan, Under Artemis, Under Zeus..... you get the point.
If you want to say prayers then do it in your home and Church. Don't force students in public schools to say Christians prayers when not every student is a Christian.
If you want your child to have God in your education then there are plenty of Christian schools out there.
I will repeat again: This is NOT a Christian country!
2007-07-20 06:05:57 · answer #11 · answered by ? 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋