OT: Will Ted Kennedy demand answers from these folks ?

[Teal]

The term "separation of church and state" was first coined in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. But that doesn't mean that the concept of separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution.

Actually, I notice that you added something in your quotation of the Constitution that isn't there. You write that the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (a setting up) of religion..."

There's no parenthetical statement in the Constitution defining "establishment" as "a setting up". Establishment can mean "a setting up" of religion. Or it can mean other stuff as well. This is from a Supreme Court ruling in 1947:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

(and it's the Supreme Court's job to judge whether laws are constitutional or not, via Marbury v Madison)

As for saying that this is a government "whose people have no right to espouse or practice their faith in the public discourse"....I'm not sure we're living in the same country. Is the government not allowing you to belief whatever you want to believe, and practice what you believe?

Jared:

Allow me to preface my response by saying two things:

1. You have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, and I respect that right.
2. We are probably not ever going to agree on this. I don't know if I can count on one hand the times we've been round and round about this topic!


Notice, that in that ruling you cite, that the decision was made in part based upon the nonlegal letter that Jefferson wrote. It also bases that opinion, in part, on what I sincerely believe to be a faulty contextualized interpretation of the 'wall of separation between church and state.'

Again, using this letter as a basis for a Constitutional ruling is no better than relying on international law as a basis for interpreting Constitutional law. But if it must be cited, then it must be cited in it's entirety, or risk having the intent and meaning of the phrase stripped, which is what I see happening. (Can you see them using a letter from GW or Clinton to the SBC as basis for a ruling on Constitutional LAW?! Neither can I.)

As far as the restriction of my free practice of religion, I meant (and thought I said) that in the context of being a government employee. When I worked in the social work field, I was expressly forbidden to even mention or indicate my faith at work. Of course, believing very strongly that the basis for such an opinion is seriously flawed at the source, I ignored the instruction. No one has a right to tell me that my faith cannot be 'freely exercised' in any part of my life, whether I'm in government or not.

And you know as well as I that the word 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' is thrown around more than Tina Turner in Ike's apartment. It seems that the courts will slap 'unconstitutional' on anything they wish, even when the Constitution has nothing to do with it, and says nothing about the expressed case.

Ultimately, the phrase 'separation' was never intended for anyone other than the Danbury Baptists, in private correspondence. There is, that I know of, no other time that Jefferson mentions the idea, and the original idea had nothing to do with whether or not a government official could publicly or privately, practice his/her faith according to the dictates of his/her own conscience. The courts, according to the Constitution, not despite it, have no right to make a decision concerning religion other than striking down any attempt on the government's part to establish a state or national religion, or playing favorites.

[bdunn13]

Just wanted to point out how important the Marbury vs Madison case was to our country. In fact, without the brilliant John Marshall, our country would not have lasted very long. If John Marshall would have ruled differently, our whole government would have quickly failed.

[Teal]

Just wanted to point out how important the Marbury vs Madison case was to our country. In fact, without the brilliant John Marshall, our country would not have lasted very long. If John Marshall would have ruled differently, our whole government would have quickly failed.

bdunn:

As you may or may not have ascertained, I like thorough explanations. That being said, how would our country have quickly failed? This is far too general a statement for me...

[Jared]

Teal,

I respect your opinions and we probably won't agree on this. Still won't stop me from talking about it though.

Notice, that in that ruling you cite, that the decision was made in part based upon the nonlegal letter that Jefferson wrote. It also bases that opinion, in part, on what I sincerely believe to be a faulty contextualized interpretation of the 'wall of separation between church and state.'

Again, using this letter as a basis for a Constitutional ruling is no better than relying on international law as a basis for interpreting Constitutional law. But if it must be cited, then it must be cited in it's entirety, or risk having the intent and meaning of the phrase stripped, which is what I see happening. (Can you see them using a letter from GW or Clinton to the SBC as basis for a ruling on Constitutional LAW?! Neither can I.)

I really don't think it's "based" on the Jefferson letter. The Jefferson letter is an important letter in stating the church/state issue. But the idea of this separation of church and state has been written about in lots of documents, both before the writing of the Constitution and afterwards. The Jefferson letter is probably the most famous of those documents.

Also, there are lots of ways in which the Constitution can be interpreted...strict constructionism, loose constructionism, as a "living constitution", etc. In many of these, the works and thoughts of men (esp. our Founding Fathers, like Jefferson) are strongly considered. Should a letter be used as a "basis" for a ruling on Constitutional law? No, and the Supreme Court isn't doing this. But the Supreme Court will consider things like the writings of the Founding Fathers and others in order to inform/guide their decisions.

As far as the restriction of my free practice of religion, I meant (and thought I said) that in the context of being a government employee. When I worked in the social work field, I was expressly forbidden to even mention or indicate my faith at work. Of course, believing very strongly that the basis for such an opinion is seriously flawed at the source, I ignored the instruction. No one has a right to tell me that my faith cannot be 'freely exercised' in any part of my life, whether I'm in government or not.

Really? What exactly did they limit? Could you not mention that you were Christian at work? Or were you not allowed to preach while working? Or something in between? I'm curious, because I'm sure there's a fine line between what's allowable and what's not in those kinds of situations.

Ultimately, the phrase 'separation' was never intended for anyone other than the Danbury Baptists, in private correspondence. There is, that I know of, no other time that Jefferson mentions the idea, and the original idea had nothing to do with whether or not a government official could publicly or privately, practice his/her faith according to the dictates of his/her own conscience. The courts, according to the Constitution, not despite it, have no right to make a decision concerning religion other than striking down any attempt on the government's part to establish a state or national religion, or playing favorites.

The letter was published in a Massachusetts newspaper, so I really doubt that this was just "private correspondence". And he was President at the time, which would make this a fairly important public document. And Jefferson does mention the idea multiple times:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm

(other quotes in the link above...here's an example)

# I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).
.

No power to "assume authority in religious discipline" isn't just saying that the gov't can't establish a state religion. It's saying that the gov't can't be involved in religious discipline...that it's not what the gov't should be doing. There are other authors from that era that agreed with Jefferson and wrote about it. Here's a related one, from the peace treaty with the Barbary states:

ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmans; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

It's your personal interpretation that "establishment" only means creating a state religion. But multiple Supreme Court rulings have supported the idea that establishment can't be so narrowly defined.

[Jackdog]

Reagan was awesome hmmm...Didn't Reagan give Huissen most of his weapons of mass destruction?

Yes. And the Marines tought Lee Harvey Oswald how to shoot. Carter also helped fund Bin Laden and his boys while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Hell, China has a picture Slick Willie on some of their money in honor of all the neat $hit he sold them.

What's your point?

Just making the point we were feeling the repurcussions of Reagan within 10 years of him helping out the Iraqis in the Iraq-Iran War. You guys speak like Reagan was a saint but I can name off another black mark on Reagan called the Iran-Contra Affair.

Also, If you want to speak abotu truth, Colin Powell showed video tape of a Iraqi fighter jet spraying a white substance to the UN, but the plane was destroyed right after the first gulf war with the UN weapon inspectors. Misleading the UN? Yes...

I served under Reagan. I am well aware of the things he did. Did you read my posts that explain how I feel about politicians and politics? As far as Powell misleading the UN............"The wheels on the bus go round and round".

If you read all my posts you would have understood my tongue was firmly in cheek when I posted that. So save your knowledge about lies from the goverment with me. That is unless you talk about both parties.

[Teal]

I respect your opinions and we probably won't agree on this. Still won't stop me from talking about it though.

I didn't figure as much.

Also, there are lots of ways in which the Constitution can be interpreted...strict constructionism, loose constructionism, as a "living constitution", etc.

This is one of those areas where we will most likely never agree. In the church, the document(s) we hold in esteem are the scriptures. And one of the main problems has been that the idea that scripture is open to wildly differing interpretations. The fact is, that it is what it is, and says what it says. Can you be perfectly literal at all times? No; a reading of the prophet Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation in literal terms would make your head explode!

That being said, I don't believe in the slightest that there are multiple, credible ways to interpret the Constitution. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that I'm a strict constructionist-see what it says, apply what it says. The Constitution is not a 'living, breathing' document. That's just used by those who would make some 'out there' ruling that can't be based on a constructionist viewpoint. It's dangerous-people can find all sorts of nonexistent nooks and crannies that way.

Really? What exactly did they limit? Could you not mention that you were Christian at work? Or were you not allowed to preach while working? Or something in between? I'm curious, because I'm sure there's a fine line between what's allowable and what's not in those kinds of situations.

I wasn't 'allowed' to express my faith, to openly talk about it, and certainly not 'proselytize'(I don't do that anyway) while at work. In a world where I believe that 'Separation of Church and State' has been grossly misinterpreted, they may have a point. But in reality, the first amendment protects my right to practice and live out my faith without hindrance, not the other way around.

Again, I ignored the ordinance, because it is based on flawed logic, and an interpretation that does a 180 from what was intended.

The letter was published in a Massachusetts newspaper, so I really doubt that this was just "private correspondence". And he was President at the time, which would make this a fairly important public document.

Yeah, but the letter from the Danbury association was aimed directly at the president, and the response directly to those who had written him. That it was published in the paper, especially in 1802, doesn't mean what it means today to do so. Newspapers weren't just big op-ed pieces disguised as 'news' like many are today. The Danburys probably had it placed in the paper to reassure the constituency, of which there were many more than there are now. The newspapers were like Harper's Weekly then.

No power to "assume authority in religious discipline" isn't just saying that the gov't can't establish a state religion. It's saying that the gov't can't be involved in religious discipline...that it's not what the gov't should be doing.

But where and how does that constitute restriction of religious freedom in the government? The idea is that government can't mete out religious discipline,can't force it upon others, not that people in government can't practice it. And despite what any would say, simply being and openly practicing one's faith does not in any way constitute forcing anything on another. There's a difference between forcing it down someone's throat, and someone simply feeling 'threatened' by the presence of someone else's religious practice.


The thing is, one must realize what Christianity is and what it is not. It has become a religion-it is, in it's purest form, not a religion at all. I don't believe in the Roy Moore's of the world setting up idols (big ol' ten commandment monuments) just to make a pointless point. I don't like 'morality police' running around disguised as the church.

See, my identity as a person is inexorably tied to my faith in Christ. I couldn't separate the two if I tried. It's who I am. I'm not a 'bible thumper', nor am I any longer tying nationalism with Christianity. There's too much of that. The 'Moral Majority' garbage of Jerry Falwell has understandibly made folks jumpy at the thought of that kind of religious practice being free and unfettered in the government arena. I don't blame them.

I won't ever again associate my faith with my voting record. The two have no relationship to one another whatsoever. When I talk about living my faith in any and every arena, I have no intent on setting up some sort of Constantinian monarchy where everyone must believe what I believe. That's not my aim, nor is it the aim of anyone truly following Christ.

If I am granted freedom of speech and expression, that freedom shall not be infringed upon no matter what, no matter where, unless my actions threaten national security or something. I dare say that they don't.

[Brando70]

Teal, let me ask you a question: were there any people in the government office openly espousing athiesm?

If they were, then I would say you were discriminated against. If there was no discussion of religion at all, whether for or against, then I would see it as a policy of avoiding the topic. And in my experience, it's pretty common to avoid discussing religion or politics in the workplace. That includes being critical of religion.

I also just find it hard to buy into the idea that Christians in this country are persecuted. Are they criticized at times? Certainly. But so are a lot of groups. Look at the composition of the government -- the ruling party is a pro-religion party. If you want to run for office in America, you have to at least pay lip service to religion. An avowed athiest would get nowhere politically. On top of that, we've got the president and the Senate Majority leader openly calling for the teaching of theology in our science classes (intelligent design). If anything the winds have shifted toward the promotion of Christianity in the government.

[Teal]

Teal, let me ask you a question: were there any people in the government office openly espousing athiesm?

Not really. But one cannot deny another the ability to be who they are, either way.

I also just find it hard to buy into the idea that Christians in this country are persecuted.

I didn't think I mentioned anything about persecution. I'm talking about any idea that I somehow can't be an elected official without being looked at as being over the line if I practice my faith, speak of my faith, or live by my faith. That does happen.

People generally in this country aren't persecuted. Isolated events? Sure. But persecution is much more than just name calling and ridicule.

On top of that, we've got the president and the Senate Majority leader openly calling for the teaching of theology in our science classes (intelligent design).

Well, JackDog, we've officially hijacked the hell outta your thread, haven't we? From investigating previous administration officials concerning 9/11, we've gone to the first amendment, and now to intelligent design theory as theology. Oh, well...I guess we'll just keep meandering along...

Brando, I'm not going to start in again with how ridiculous it is to teach one unprovable theory, and call it credible, but deny the teaching of another unprovable theory, and call it non credible.

The teaching of evolution as fact, let alone the only explanation, is one of the most insidious things to ever enter into the arena of science. It's an unproven, unprovable theory. If it would simply be taught that way, I'd be fine with it.

To simply poo poo another theory because it has something to do with a designer rather than a completely random act is ludicrous.

[pk500]

I didn't think I mentioned anything about persecution. I'm talking about any idea that I somehow can't be an elected official without being looked at as being over the line if I practice my faith, speak of my faith, or live by my faith. That does happen.

Teal:

Try being a law-abiding American citizen who is a practicing Muslim and is running for local, state or national office. Then you'll learn the true meaning of religious persecution in America, especially if you have an Arab-sounding first and/or last name.

I also find it ironic that you're claiming discrimination or scorn of Christians who proclaim their faith while running for office. Isn't the religious right one of the groups that tipped the election toward Bush in 2004? Didn't Bush win in 2000 and 2004 despite being open with the voters about his faith?

In other words, a persecuted group is a vital part of the political majority in this country, a majority whose leader also is a member of this group supposedly subject to such discrimination?

That doesn't add up.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

I didn't think I mentioned anything about persecution. I'm talking about any idea that I somehow can't be an elected official without being looked at as being over the line if I practice my faith, speak of my faith, or live by my faith. That does happen.

Teal:

Try being a law-abiding American citizen who is a practicing Muslim and is running for local, state or national office. Then you'll learn the true meaning of religious persecution in America, especially if you have an Arab-sounding first and/or last name.

I also find it ironic that you're claiming discrimination or scorn of Christians who proclaim their faith while running for office. Isn't the religious right one of the groups that tipped the election toward Bush in 2004? Didn't Bush win in 2000 and 2004 despite being open with the voters about his faith?

In other words, a persecuted group is a vital part of the political majority in this country, a majority whose leader also is a member of this group supposedly subject to such discrimination?

That doesn't add up.

Take care,
PK

There is no religious persecution in America. Go to Syria and claim your Catholic or Christian faith there, PK. There is where you'll find the true definition of persecution.

I'm not talking about persecution here. I don't know how that got misconstrued, but it did. I'm not talking about it keeping me out of office, either. I'm talking about nutjobs like the ACLU and the like going nuts when a principal, mayor, senator, or whatever lives out their faith. It isn't persecution, but it is highly annoying that the self proclaimed 'enlightened' ones could be so dense as to think that the Constitution forbids it.

[Jayhawker]

The teaching of evolution as fact, let alone the only explanation, is one of the most insidious things to ever enter into the arena of science. It's an unproven, unprovable theory. If it would simply be taught that way, I'd be fine with it.

To simply poo poo another theory because it has something to do with a designer rather than a completely random act is ludicrous.

Evolution is a theory based on the data that has been observed. It has been key in our understanding how to combat viruses. It is a science that can be tested.

But it is taught as a theory! Students that pay attention, learn about the defintion of a theory, and know that science is continually studying and debunking theories. I would check out The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn before making any statements about theories being taught as fact.

Intelligent Design has been taught for years. Read Descartes, St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and David Hume to learn about how they used science to discuss the existence of a creator, designer, or prime mover. Intelligent Design should be taught in philosophy classes, not science.

I've been inundated with quite a bit of the ID debate lately, and I am actually quite hopeful that this is a move in the right direction. At least creationists are now accepting science, as ID uses the data from DNA research as well as other sources to make their points.

If churches could start encouraging their congregations to embrace science, a monumental bridge could be built between academics and religon. You have to understand, academics are already studying Christian ideas, as the philosphers I mentioned were all Christians bent on proving the exestence of God, as well other things. I even studied the Bible in my Western Civ class at a community college.

Personally, I am agnostic. I think the world seems like it was designed, that all of this seems too complicated to be chance. I also think that organized religon, once a great tool to civilize the masses, now creates a disconnect from actual spirituality. But these are discussions of philosophy, not science.

[pk500]

I'm talking about nutjobs like the ACLU and the like going nuts when a principal, mayor, senator, or whatever lives out their faith. It isn't persecution, but it is highly annoying that the self proclaimed 'enlightened' ones could be so dense as to think that the Constitution forbids it.

I have no problem with a person living their faith. I have a big problem when that person uses their faith as a basis to run a non-denominational entity, such as a public school or a government.

A classic example is prayer in public schools. It has no place there. It's a school, a place for the three R's, and R-eligion isn't one of them. A parochial school, the home and the place of worship are the places for religious education, not a public school.

And I don't buy the "those who don't believe don't have to pray" argument. The point is, religion doesn't belong in a public school, just like sports chants or a keg party don't belong in religious services.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

Well, JackDog, we've officially hijacked the hell outta your thread, haven't we? From investigating previous administration officials concerning 9/11, we've gone to the first amendment, and now to intelligent design theory as theology. Oh, well...I guess we'll just keep meandering along...

Brando, I'm not going to start in again with how ridiculous it is to teach one unprovable theory, and call it credible, but deny the teaching of another unprovable theory, and call it non credible.

The teaching of evolution as fact, let alone the only explanation, is one of the most insidious things to ever enter into the arena of science. It's an unproven, unprovable theory. If it would simply be taught that way, I'd be fine with it.

To simply poo poo another theory because it has something to do with a designer rather than a completely random act is ludicrous.

Teal, you should know by now that these threads always get hijacked

I also didn't mean to poo poo intelligent design. Like Jayhawker pointed out, studying where we came from and how we got here is one of the classic questions of humanity. But it is a theology, not a scientific theory. Until you can prove the existence of God, you can't address ID as science. I won't get into the pro-evolution arguments, but it has a ton of supporting evidence.

Anyway, my point in bringing that up wasn't to discuss evolution. It was to show that America is a Christian friendly country, more so than any other Western nation. And persecution was the wrong word. I just think that Christians tend to cry foul anytime they are not allowed to "express their faith." I think many seem to see a lack of expression as some endorsement of athiesm. When in fact, I think religion is often kept from public discussion in places like work or school because it is so hard to be rational about it (much like sex and politics).

Anytime you have a public sector like those areas, you have to consider the minority opinion. That's precisely why it seems like the ACLU is anti-Christian -- we are a Christian majority, and the ACLU is always there to protect the minority. When you have things like school prayer, you're endorsing Christianity. That's not evil. That's not wrong. I like Christianity. But it's going to make non-Christians as uncomfortable as if a class of kids got out their prayer rugs and started facing Mecca. Come to school to learn the three Rs, as PK said, go to church to pray. I think that applies to other areas as well.

Teal, I appreciate your arguments on the subject. You make a lot of good points and I appreciate your passion and dedication to your faith. We probably won't see eye to eye but I like hearing other points of view.

[Teal]

At least creationists are now accepting science, as ID uses the data from DNA research as well as other sources to make their points.

If churches could start encouraging their congregations to embrace science, a monumental bridge could be built between academics and religon. You have to understand, academics are already studying Christian ideas, as the philosphers I mentioned were all Christians bent on proving the exestence of God, as well other things. I even studied the Bible in my Western Civ class at a community college.

Personally, I am agnostic. I think the world seems like it was designed, that all of this seems too complicated to be chance. I also think that organized religon, once a great tool to civilize the masses, now creates a disconnect from actual spirituality. But these are discussions of philosophy, not science.

Very good points, Tom. Churches don't need to encourage their congregations to embrace, but reimbrace science. I'm not sure where the disconnect began, but science has it's roots, like classical music, in Christian thought. Pascal, Galileo (who was ironically ostracized by the church for insisting that the world was not the center of the universe), Newton...all were devout believers in God. Those aren't the only ones, but I don't carry my almanac around with me!

Science is not the enemy of God. In fact, the intricacies of life amaze me. The designs of the earth, the atom, humans, the universe are enormously complex, and are pinpoint accurate. That someone figured out how it works doesn't make me believe less in God...makes me believe MORE.

You are very right on alot of this, bro. Thanks for the insight...

I have no problem with a person living their faith. I have a big problem when that person uses their faith as a basis to run a non-denominational entity, such as a public school or a government.

A classic example is prayer in public schools. It has no place there. It's a school, a place for the three R's, and R-eligion isn't one of them. A parochial school, the home and the place of worship are the places for religious education, not a public school.

And I don't buy the "those who don't believe don't have to pray" argument. The point is, religion doesn't belong in a public school, just like sports chants or a keg party don't belong in religious services.

pk,

I don't totally disagree with you here. I'm not a big proponent of teacher led prayer in school. In fact, I'd rather it stay out of the hands of the WorldNetDaily type of religious nutballs, so it's better if it's out of the hands of the instructors. I don't want political or ideological instruction shoved down my kid's throats, either.

But are you opposed to a kid who wants to pray? A group of kids who choose to pray together at some point in the day? Why should they leave their beliefs at the schoolhouse door, while everyone else brings theirs in freely?

As far as Christian leadership is concerned, would you be comfortable with a leader who models mercy and grace, who lives out his faith without talking about it? Saint Francis of Assissi said this: "Preach the Gospel. And, if absolutely necessary, use words." A person who cares for the least among us, who will go the extra mile, and who isn't just concerned with making kids pray, and being the morality police...would that be ok? In other words, acted out his/her faith, without ever saying a word about it, unless asked. Because that's the kind of leader I want. That's the kind of leader I want to be.

When in fact, I think religion is often kept from public discussion in places like work or school because it is so hard to be rational about it (much like sex and politics).

I know way too many people who can't simply be rational about it. So you're very right there. I guess what frustrates me isn't those who don't do religion. It's the ones who do, and who use it as a club that get on my nerves. I'm not speaking for the Moral Majority, or the 'Religious Right'. I have no use for that approach. I guess I'm just a horse of a different color. Jerry Falwell makes me ill...

As to whether or not ID is as valid as science as Evolution, I guess we'll just disagree. I've seen some ID texts that would blow your mind (they did mine, anyway) with their scientific prowess.

Teal, I appreciate your arguments on the subject. You make a lot of good points and I appreciate your passion and dedication to your faith. We probably won't see eye to eye but I like hearing other points of view.

Thank you very much. That's more of a compliment to me than you know. Same here. I'm not threatened by opposing points of view...

[Jackdog]

Well, JackDog, we've officially hijacked the hell outta your thread, haven't we? From investigating previous administration officials concerning 9/11, we've gone to the first amendment, and now to intelligent design theory as theology. Oh, well...I guess we'll just keep meandering along...

No problem. I am really enjoying the civil discourse between yourself,Jared,Brando andPK. It's one hell of a lot more interesting to read you guys thoughts on this subject. Carry on! .

[pk500]

But are you opposed to a kid who wants to pray? A group of kids who choose to pray together at some point in the day? Why should they leave their beliefs at the schoolhouse door, while everyone else brings theirs in freely?

Yes, I am opposed to it if it disrupts the educational process. Public schools are a place for education, not prayer. If kids want to say a quiet prayer over their lunches in the lunch room, fine. But if kids want to start every class with a prayer, robbing time and focus from the task of education, then I'm opposed. Kids who are that strident about prayer in school should go to a religious school.

As far as Christian leadership is concerned, would you be comfortable with a leader who models mercy and grace, who lives out his faith without talking about it?

Of course. But what politician these days ever would do that? None.

Bush's success at the voting booth, at least in 2004, has proven that a majority of Americans want their politicians to wear their religion on their sleeve. So politicians, being the opportunistic scum that they are, will use that to their advantage and play the faith card all they can in the ever-groveling and pandering quest to gain votes.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

So politicians, being the opportunistic scum that they are, will use that to their advantage and play the faith card all they can in the ever-groveling and pandering quest to gain votes.

Drop the Gunners avatar. Were even. You just gave me my new signature for September.

[Teal]

But are you opposed to a kid who wants to pray? A group of kids who choose to pray together at some point in the day? Why should they leave their beliefs at the schoolhouse door, while everyone else brings theirs in freely?

Yes, I am opposed to it if it disrupts the educational process. Public schools are a place for education, not prayer. If kids want to say a quiet prayer over their lunches in the lunch room, fine. But if kids want to start every class with a prayer, robbing time and focus from the task of education, then I'm opposed. Kids who are that strident about prayer in school should go to a religious school.

As far as Christian leadership is concerned, would you be comfortable with a leader who models mercy and grace, who lives out his faith without talking about it?

Of course. But what politician these days ever would do that? None.

Bush's success at the voting booth, at least in 2004, has proven that a majority of Americans want their politicians to wear their religion on their sleeve. So politicians, being the opportunistic scum that they are, will use that to their advantage and play the faith card all they can in the ever-groveling and pandering quest to gain votes.

Take care,
PK

Well, see, we agree, then, if you understand my take on prayer. It's a conversation with God. Christianity is also a way of life for me. It's like my right arm.

But I don't have anything against a kid who feels the need to pray, especially one who has been taught correctly and knows that they need not bend a knee, bow a head, and speak in Shakespearean lingo.

As far as politicians go, and what churchy people want, unfortunately, you're right. But please understand, just because I'm a follower of Christ doesn't mean that I want the same thing. It is our own scripture, pk, in which God says,

"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." That ain't just politicians, either. There are a frightening number of people in America like that. They are the morality police. The picketers. The folks who sit on the steps of an Alabama courthouse as the 10 commandments 'idol' is taken out, screaming, "GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY GOD!"


exactly...

[pk500]

True, Teal, but you're a rare commodity these days: A rational right-wing Christian. Seriously.

I'm guessing most of the right-wing Christians who want prayer in public schools espouse the evangelical style of prayer, where the method is almost more important than the message. Hands in the air, closing eyes and throwing necks toward the heavens, high hosannahs and all that.

As a practicing, somewhat devout Catholic, I CAN'T STAND the evangelical stuff from other sects of Christianity permeating the Catholic Church.

Two examples that drive me berserk:

1. People holding their palms upward during prayer when the priest is doing the same thing.

2. Holding of hands during the Our Father and then lifting those hands toward the sky during the Kingdom, Power and the Glory. In fact, I know a few of my colleagues at the Speedway go to Catholic churches in Indy that do that evangelical crap, and I kindly and quietly told them before a Mass at the Speedway in May that we attended together that I wouldn't extend my hand toward them before the Lord's Prayer.

Nothing personal; I just don't believe that evangelical histrionics enhance the Mass one bit. I don't need it to connect to God. But those who think it does help can do it -- just don't expect me to toe the line and play the fire-and-brimstone game that turns the Mass into a traveling Up With People show.

I'm a pretty old school Catholic. Communion in the hand is OK, but I never do face-to-face Confession, and altar servers who wear sneakers and jeans on the altar really piss me off. If I ever showed up to serve wearing sneakers and jeans, Monsignor Dwyer would have sent me home on the spot. That's the way it should be.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

True, Teal, but you're a rare commodity these days: A rational right-wing Christian. Seriously.

I'm guessing most of the right-wing Christians who want prayer in public schools espouse the evangelical style of prayer, where the method is almost more important than the message. Hands in the air, closing eyes and throwing necks toward the heavens, high hosannahs and all that.

As a practicing, somewhat devout Catholic, I CAN'T STAND the evangelical stuff from other sects of Christianity permeating the Catholic Church.

Two examples that drive me berserk:

1. People holding their palms upward during prayer when the priest is doing the same thing.

2. Holding of hands during the Our Father and then lifting those hands toward the sky during the Kingdom, Power and the Glory. In fact, I know a few of my colleagues at the Speedway go to Catholic churches in Indy that do that evangelical crap, and I kindly and quietly told them before a Mass at the Speedway in May that we attended together that I wouldn't extend my hand toward them before the Lord's Prayer.

Nothing personal; I just don't believe that evangelical histrionics enhance the Mass one bit. I don't need it to connect to God. But those who think it does help can do it -- just don't expect me to toe the line and play the fire-and-brimstone game that turns the Mass into a traveling Up With People show.

I'm a pretty old school Catholic. Communion in the hand is OK, but I never do face-to-face Confession, and altar servers who wear sneakers and jeans on the altar really piss me off. If I ever showed up to serve wearing sneakers and jeans, Monsignor Dwyer would have sent me home on the spot. That's the way it should be.

Take care,
PK

I'm not the norm, I'll admit. But I'm working on it...I'll try to get a few more to jump off the bandwagon with me...

I'm all for you being able to worship and pray in what way seems the most meaningful to you. I've never attended a Mass...I may have to do that one day...

[Jared]

That being said, I don't believe in the slightest that there are multiple, credible ways to interpret the Constitution. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that I'm a strict constructionist-see what it says, apply what it says. The Constitution is not a 'living, breathing' document. That's just used by those who would make some 'out there' ruling that can't be based on a constructionist viewpoint. It's dangerous-people can find all sorts of nonexistent nooks and crannies that way.

It can be dangerous...but being a strict constructionist could be just as dangerous. For example, the Constitution didn't say anything specific about segregation. Lots of strict constructionists (not necessarily you, btw) took this to mean that since this wasn't specifically addressed in the Constitution, it was up to the states to decide on this. Fortunately, the Warren Court was an "activist court" and made lots of rulings that protected the rights of the minority (like Brown v Board of Education).

The court obviously shouldn't be pulling stuff out of thin air....going to extremes, either on the strict constructionist or "living constitution" ends of the spectrum is going to cause problems. Best thing is a middle ground...and I think the court's done a pretty good job with that. Not a perfect job...but a pretty good job.

As for you and your social work job....I'm probably a little more on the live and let live side than the gov't. I definitely think that someone should be free to express their faith and talk about it at work; meaning around the water cooler, not on the clock, etc. And you should definitely be able to pray when on the job. I think the line would be if you're expressing your faith as part of your social work...though it's kind of a fine line as to what would count as that. It's a really difficult issue for people to encounter, and I think most employers (governmental and non-governmental) edge towards being more cautious in that respect.

Yeah, but the letter from the Danbury association was aimed directly at the president, and the response directly to those who had written him. That it was published in the paper, especially in 1802, doesn't mean what it means today to do so. Newspapers weren't just big op-ed pieces disguised as 'news' like many are today. The Danburys probably had it placed in the paper to reassure the constituency, of which there were many more than there are now. The newspapers were like Harper's Weekly then.

But this still makes it public. And other politicians of the day expressed the same belief....there's a good website (which I can't find now, never bookmarked it) with tons of documents on church and state discussion from 1770-1840. It shows that this was a matter of contention then (as it is now), but that lots of other thinkers of the time supported the Jeffersonian view on this.

But where and how does that constitute restriction of religious freedom in the government? The idea is that government can't mete out religious discipline,can't force it upon others, not that people in government can't practice it. And despite what any would say, simply being and openly practicing one's faith does not in any way constitute forcing anything on another. There's a difference between forcing it down someone's throat, and someone simply feeling 'threatened' by the presence of someone else's religious practice.

Actually, I agree with you here. Openly practicing faith shouldn't be considered as forcing something down someone's throat. If the government is infringing on this, then I think they're wrong. I'd be curious to see what Supreme Court rulings have been like on this issue.

[Teal]

Jared:

I think mostly what it boils down to is that we may well be circling the same target, shooting at it from different angles. Thanks for the discussion. I'm always open for looking at other viewpoints...

[Jared]

And Teal...I'm obligated to comment on this.

Brando, I'm not going to start in again with how ridiculous it is to teach one unprovable theory, and call it credible, but deny the teaching of another unprovable theory, and call it non credible.

The teaching of evolution as fact, let alone the only explanation, is one of the most insidious things to ever enter into the arena of science. It's an unproven, unprovable theory. If it would simply be taught that way, I'd be fine with it.

To simply poo poo another theory because it has something to do with a designer rather than a completely random act is ludicrous.

I have to clarify a few things (as the resident scientist on the board, I guess).

First, no theory is provable. It's impossible. Theories can only be disproven. Things tend to be considered factual if there is an immense amount of evidence in support of the theory. But no theory is provable...so when people say that you can't prove evolution, they're right. BUT you can't prove ANYTHING in science....it's the way the scientific method is setup.

Second, the reason the theory of evolution is taught as factual is because there is a mountain of evidence supporting it (I won't go into it here, unless asked and/or challenged on it).

Third (a brief aside), evolution is NOT incompatible with a belief in God/Christianity/etc. It all depends on how you interpret (there's that word again) Genesis. There's ultra-literal (Earth made in 7 24-hour days), there's extremely general (this is the general order things came about), and then there's in between. Lots of parts of Christianity are fine with evolution and do not believe it comes in conflict with Scripture, such as the Catholic Church:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Ev ... lution.asp

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

I think it's important to note that there are a lot of Christians/believers in God that also think that evolution is how we came about. And I think lots of the time (and Teal, you definitely are NOT doing this), people that support evolution are vilified as godless heathens that are trying to push some sort of God-hating agenda. And this is far from the truth....most people that think we evolved believe it because of the evidence that supports it, not because they're against God.

[Brando70]

True, Teal, but you're a rare commodity these days: A rational right-wing Christian. Seriously.

You know, and this applies to the left side as well (and relates somewhat to the thread): everything gets distorted to hell on the national stage.

Mrs. B and I have a lot of lefty friends (miserable traitorous fiction writers ). Yet I honestly don't know anyone like Michael Moore, and in fact most of us can't stand goofball liberals any more than fire-breathing conservatives. We don't want people to lie and cheat just because they are working toward causes we might endorse. It's the same way teal doesn't like the self-serving Moral Majority stuff, and I'm sure most of his Christian colleagues are not like that. It's like on a national level everything becomes Partisan Bickering: The Movie.

As a practicing, somewhat devout Catholic, I CAN'T STAND the evangelical stuff from other sects of Christianity permeating the Catholic Church.

Two examples that drive me berserk:

1. People holding their palms upward during prayer when the priest is doing the same thing.

2. Holding of hands during the Our Father and then lifting those hands toward the sky during the Kingdom, Power and the Glory. In fact, I know a few of my colleagues at the Speedway go to Catholic churches in Indy that do that evangelical crap, and I kindly and quietly told them before a Mass at the Speedway in May that we attended together that I wouldn't extend my hand toward them before the Lord's Prayer.

LOL, PK, the wife and I can't stand this either. I don't mean it as a knock on evangelicals, but dag gummit, we Catholics don't like to be touched!* We are a religion of tradition and routine: sing, stand, sit, kneel, shake, communion, sing, the Mass has ended, go in Peace! Anything else is an illegal use of the hands that should result in 15 minutes off the homily!


*that goes double for the altar boys.

[Teal]

we Catholics don't like to be touched!* Anything else is an illegal use of the hands that should result in 15 minutes off the homily!


*that goes double for the altar boys.

Good thing Michael Jackson's a Jehovah's Witness...