'War on Christmas' Nonsense is a War on Secularists

Dennis:

Happy Holidays and a New Year, of peace on Earth and good will to all, from Rebecca and I.

I am glad to see you seed this article. I posted a similar article, on Counterpunch, as to what really threatens Christmas by Father Albert. The ideological corruption of our right wing propagandists, require not only a denial of history, facts, but false relationships, false ideological arguments to substitute straw issues for real concrete failures. These very same right wing ideologues which go after Islamo fundamentalism, theocratic, patriarchial views, have no problem putting in place their own fundamentalism, theocratic, patriarchial backward class hierarchies, class nationlism, jointly fusing Christiantiy with imperialism and fascism.

At least you could make the argument, that it is the Christian crusaders, military Nazis, who are occupying and invading Arab lands, that accounts for counter terroism of our own state terrorist policies. Pointing out these secular truths gets in the way of these yahoo Christians who have no clue to either history or ideology, and never ask questions. Thanks for the seed.

Yes, and the 'left wing propagandists' have done their bit to add fuel to the fire time and again, haven't they?

I work with two Muslims and a Jew, and I love all three of them. The point of saying "Have a good holiday" instead of "Merry Christmas" isn't about "not offending" people who don't celebrate Christmas. None of these three individuals would be offended if an unknowing person wished them a merry Christmas, or asked how their Christmas was (which happened/happens to all of them quite frequently). The point of generalizing your speech with strangers is simply understanding and acknowledging the fact that not everyone celebrates Christmas, and making room for these individuals also in your well-wishing.

The only people getting "offended" over this ordeal are the ones who wince or turn their nose up or throw back a tart response when they hear "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" at the supermarket. These people are bigots, plain and simple. They want everyone to believe in their religion and they want everyone to celebrate their holiday and they want to make sure that everyone who doesn't gets systematically excluded from the well-wishing and pleasantries.

I was riding in a car with a friend a while ago, when another vehicle pulled directly out in front of us without pause or hesitation, causing us to have to hit the brakes so we didn't hit him. My friend said something like, "Oh excuse me sir, it's your world, I'm just driving in it. Don't mind me." I laughed at the time, but the sad thing is, these people actually have that mentality. It's their time of year, it's their holiday time, and if you don't celebrate their way, well then you can just go @!$%# off and die, because this is America, and in America we celebrate Christmas!

I'm an atheist born into a Christian family, and we've always celebrated Christmas. Now that I've left the faith I'm sort of confused as to whether or not I want to continue celebrating the holiday. People like this every year are continually making the decision that much easier to make.

Amen. Preach it, brother. More Christmas in churches and homes, and absolutely friggin' none of it in the public square.

They refuse to see that Christian symbolism in public buildings, ie., a manger at city hall, violates that clause

Perhaps it's because public displays of religion don't actually violate the First Amendment. They do violate a certain interpretation of that amendment, but it can be argued that that interpretation is incorrect. Acceptance of religion is not establishment of religion.

As Ribbee notes, there is no 'separation clause' in the Constitution.

Always ask yourself, when it comes to a public display, is this a symbol shared by all? I get a little tired of the debate. Are there not enough churches or living rooms, that we must now clutter up the parks and public spaces with these tacky displays?

... is this a symbol shared by all?

No need to ask yourself or anyone else. There is absolutely no viewpoint which is shared by all.

"Believing... 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 legitimate 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." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802.

There are plenty of viewpoints shared by all. A plain statement of fact: this is a public park. It is paid for by tax dollars. What's to debate here? I'm a Christian. I don't want some tacky version of what I hold sacred gussying up some park, offending Jewish people who have to share the park. Or atheists? Ever think about it from that perspective? No, I've really had a gutful of pushing sacred symbols, no matter how seemingly harmless they might be, into other people's faces. If's exasperating.

Are there not enough churches or living rooms, that we must now clutter up the parks and public spaces with these tacky displays? ...I've really had a gutful of pushing sacred symbols, no matter how seemingly harmless they might be, into other people's faces. If's exasperating. For once, we agree totally.

Hallo,

Thomas Jefferson is not the Constitution. His observation of his belief in the effect of the first amendment was not then and is not now the constitution.

The first amendment prohibits the federal government from interfering with the free expression of religion. If the first amendment had instead called for a 'wall of separation between church and state', the the constitution would compel the federal government to interfere with the free expression of religion.

When you replace a law with the expected effect of a law, you can reverse the meaning of that law.

Of course, Jefferson's observation did not replace the first amendment.

"The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society." --Abraham Lincoln

This Jefferson quote and the Jefferson Letters that are in the Library of Congress, have been used by the Supreme Court as a guide to interpret the meaning of the Constitution for over 200 years. I don't think anything you say carries any weight whatsoever, other then the dead variety. It is well known by any right thinking, well educated intelligent person that because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution. The constitutions of several of the states prohibited public support of religion (though some did explicitly support or demand adherence to Christianity). Above all, the many varying sects of Christianity in America required that to be fair to all, there could be preference to none. It would have been disgraceful for anyone to wish to leave the United States because of religious persecution. So the authors decided it best to keep the government out of religion. This is not to say that the United States was not or is not a religious nation. Religion plays a big role in the everyday life of Americans, then and now. But what the authors were striving for is tolerance... something I fear contemporary Americans are lacking.

So the authors decided it best to keep the government out of religion.

That is exactly what they did in the first amendment. They did not seek to keep religion out of government.

If you want a 'wall of separation', you should seek to change the constitution to create such a wall. The constitution creates no such wall.

I suggest instead that we elect whoever we want to elect. Siddhārtha Gautama is welcome to seek office and serve if elected.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 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.

It's plan english.

It sure is plain English. Notice the lack of the phrase 'wall of separation'.

Dennis,
I kind of like Buddha. I would not object to a statue of Buddha on public property. What you suggest, however, is a law to place Buddhas on public property, which would be in violation of the constitution.

jpark,

I don't think Dennis suggested a law. I think he suggested just going ahead and doing it. I'm pretty sure Dennis would be opposed to a law mandating Buddhas. Personally, I don't think we can go wrong with Buddha everywhere, but it doesn't mean we should. Similarly, it's a bad idea to display the 10 commandments (not that I have anything against any of them) or Nativity scenes on government property. I am allowed, however, to put them on my property. It is especially offensive to use any public funds for non secular displays.

If you allow religious paraphernalia, it must include all religions, it cannot be exclusively Christian. The Constitution does not use the word Christianity in the establishment clause, or anywhere else in the Constitution for that matter, making it inclusive rather than exclusive.

It is especially offensive to use any public funds for non secular displays.

I partially agree with that statement. Leaving aside the fact that the first amendment only applies to the federal government, the use of public funds for religious displays is prohibited by the constitution. In the same manner, however, your statement should be:

It is especially offensive to use any public funds for displays.

If the government specifically prohibits use of public funds for religious displays, it logically must prohibit use of public funds for secular displays, since the government is supposed to be neutral toward religion.

Note also that the use of public property does not equate to the use of public funds.

hamid.nyc,

I agree. Every religion's paraphernalia is OK if any religion's paraphernalia is OK.

I disagree with the 'must include' portion of your statement. Allowing is considerably different from requiring.

How can Congress avoid interfering with the free expression of religion when the Christian right is determined to make their religion dominant, and are trying to do so by electing only Christian congresspeople and Presidents, and using their influence through those votes to ensure that the Supreme Court also gets stacked with Christian conservatives?

Jefferson's comment is about exactly this kind of situation - where one segment of the population tries to use religion not only as a litmus test for public office, but also as a pre-requisite for deciding on the law of the land. Jefferson knew that the majority of Americans were also Christian, just as all the other authors of the Constitution did. Most of them came from countries where the Christian church's dominance had led to the kind of oppression and hardship that drove America's settlers here in the first place.

Jefferson's point was clear - the "wall of separation" means very simply that regardless of any elected official's personal religious beliefs, they are required to act according the the law and the best interests of the country as a whole, and NOT discount anyone's rights or disenfranchise any segment of the American population simply because they don't abide by a specific faith.

To all those Christians who want to forget that, I would ask this:

Would you be willing to vote for an atheist - even if that atheist espoused all the views held by the most conservative Christians, and there was absolutely nothing questionable in their background?

If not, why not?

Also, what if America were not predominantly Christian? What if the majority religion were Judaism or Humanism? Would you still think that it's okay for the government to use religious values in it's decisions? Would you vote for a Jewish or Humanist President?

Or is it only okay to ignore the real meaning of the First Amendment when its YOUR religion that would be the dominant one?

Being a Christian, as I've said to the disgust and fury of many, I'd vote for an atheist, any day of the week, over and above the sorry-ass Pander Bears, especially in the Republican Party. As long as he kept his atheism in his back pocket and didn't turn it loose on public policy, all the better. Well, he could let a little of it out, just to periodically keep the religious in line. An atheist would make a fine president.

And let's cut to the chase here, I don't want to see any religious symbols in public places. Period. All this hoo-hah about everyone puts his sacred symbol in the park. If I saw some Flying Spaghetti Monster crap befouling my park, I'd find that highly offensive, as I find the religious of this place cluttering up Newsvine with their crappy sermons. Want a sermon? Go to church. Same goes for you atheists, you're worse, your smug superiority complex gives me a rash, acting like you can come around here to foist off your crap as if it were News or Opinion. Jefferson had it exactly right, he knew the dangers of this sort of nonsense.

moeloe,

I don't know about you, but I have never voted for a person based on that person's expressed religious leanings (or lack thereof).

I would vote for an atheist, a Mormon, a Jew, and Hindu or a Buddhist. I would be hesitant to vote for a Muslim, since the Muslim religion seems intent on world dominance. I would not want any religion forced on me or anyone else.

Well, I am glad to hear that from both of you. But unfortunately, you are in the minority according the the Christian right.

I'll have to see if I can find the link again, but I recall reading that a poll was taken sometime this past year asking if the subjects would vote for an Atheist for President. More than 70% (I forget the exact amount, but it was at least that high or higher) said no.

But all one needs to do is watch what is happening on both sides of the 2008 Presidential race. Religious views and values have become the number one topic - getting far more coverage than the candidates' stance on the war, the economy, foreign policy, domestic policy, etc. It is the Christian right that has made religion such an issue, and they have no intention of backing down.

The First Amendment, and Jefferson's comments, are the only defense we have against that. But sadly, I'm not sure that either will be enough, at least not when so many people are so easily manipulated by their religious leaders into believing anything (without bothering to investigate the truth for themselves). If their preacher tells them there's a war against Christianity and Christian values, they believe it. If their preacher tells them that Atheists, Agnostics, and Humanists are evil people who want to destroy all religion and lead them all into "sin" - they believe it. And if their preacher tells them that "God" is backing a particular candidate because he (or she) is a "good Christian", they will vote that person into the White House, no matter how ill-suited the person may be for the job (as Bush was).

It sure is plain English. Notice the lack of the phrase wall of separation.

What part of "No" 'law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand? If You're going to continue using the vocabulary of a a 4 year old, and show that you do not have the ability to comprehend the meaning of the first amendment as a ruse to justify your being a recusant, then you should understand that ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. And that means you have no excuse for being ignorant.

"The separation of Church and state", is the shorthand for the the intended meaning of The Establishment Clause. by the Framers of the Constitution, And is law!, as the phrase The wording of "separation of Church and state". Has been used and upheld as law on more then one occasion. By the Senate, the ultimate law of the land, and lower courts. If you don't want to accept this then leave.

I don't believe you know much about Christians, if this is your opinion of us. We Protestants especially are incensed by the relentless attempts to politicize us. I am the child of missionaries, in Africa. My parents stayed out of politics. There's an ancient tradition of tolerance of other belief structures among us: there was a day when we were persecuted by other Christians, who believed the Church was the State. Worse, we Protestants have seen hucksters like George Bush come along, swindle poor ignorant bastards into believing he's a Christian, then sets all his religious buddies up with cushy jobs doling out money to religious organizations.

Protestants I know, Catholics less well so. When Peter Stuyvesant was leader of New Amsterdam, he was an intolerant bastard, forcing the Dutch Reformed Church down everyone's throats. When a group of Quakers arrived, Stuyvesant forbad them to build a meeting house. Thirty of his subjects complained, in a document called the Flushing Remonstrance. Unlike Stuyvesant, the Dutch government sided with the dissenters, establishing the principles of religious freedom, long before our Constitution. Here is the Flushing Remonstrance, in its entirety, the work of Protestants:

____

Right Honorable

You have been pleased to send unto us a certain prohibition or command that we should not receive or entertain any of those people called Quakers because they are supposed to be, by some, seducers of the people. For our part we cannot condemn them in this case, neither can we stretch out our hands against them, for out of Christ God is a consuming fire, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Wee desire therefore in this case not to judge least we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master. Wee are bounde by the law to do good unto all men, especially to those of the household of faith. And though for the present we seem to be unsensible for the law and the Law giver, yet when death and the Law assault us, if wee have our advocate to seeke, who shall plead for us in this case of conscience betwixt God and our own souls; the powers of this world can neither attach us, neither excuse us, for if God justifye who can condemn and if God condemn there is none can justifye.

And for those jealousies and suspicions which some have of them, that they are destructive unto Magistracy and Ministerye, that cannot bee, for the Magistrate hath his sword in his hand and the Minister hath the sword in his hand, as witnesse those two great examples, which all Magistrates and Ministers are to follow, Moses and Christ, whom God raised up maintained and defended against all enemies both of flesh and spirit; and therefore that of God will stand, and that which is of man will come to nothing. And as the Lord hath taught Moses or the civil power to give an outward liberty in the state, by the law written in his heart designed for the good of all, and can truly judge who is good, who is evil, who is true and who is false, and can pass definitive sentence of life or death against that man which arises up against the fundamental law of the States General; soe he hath made his ministers a savor of life unto life and a savor of death unto death.

The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks and Egyptians, as they are considered sons of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, soe love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage. And because our Saviour sayeth it is impossible but that offences will come, but woe unto him by whom they cometh, our desire is not to offend one of his little ones, in whatsoever form, name or title hee appears in, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker, but shall be glad to see anything of God in any of them, desiring to doe unto all men as we desire all men should doe unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State; for our Saviour sayeth this is the law and the prophets.

Therefore if any of these said persons come in love unto us, we cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall persuade our consciences, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man. And this is according to the patent and charter of our Towne, given unto us in the name of the States General, which we are not willing to infringe, and violate, but shall houlde to our patent and shall remaine, your humble subjects, the inhabitants of Vlishing.

Written this 27th of December in the year 1657

jpark,

I would be hesitant to vote for a Muslim, since the Muslim religion seems intent on world dominance.

Wow. That's the same reason I won't vote for a Christian.

Blaise:

I know very well that there are many Christians who do not agree with the very vocal fundamentalist Christian right on many issues. Unfortunately, there are not enough of you speaking out against the others.

All we hear about is Christian values and Christian rights, from the very Christians who want to impose their values on others, take away the rights of others to believe differently, and spend a great deal of their time acting in extremely un-Christian ways.

What we do not hear at all though, are Christians like yourself speaking out publicly against the influence these splinter groups are wielding over our government. And we need for those of you who disagree with that influence to speak out. As long as the resistance to the Christian right is only coming from non-Christians, it will continue to be dismissed as the rantings of "sinners". But if other Christians speak out against it, they cannot be ignored so easily.

Hallo,

There is no establishment clause. I know the Supreme Court has applied an interpretation to the first amendment -- an amendment which needs no interpretation.

DliffDogg,

There is no equivalent to Sharia law in Christianity. Muslims make state law and religious law indistinguishable. Christianity is not based on law but is based on freedom from the law.

There is no establishment clause.

Your recusancy has reached the stage of being a debilitating and delusional mental state of consciousness. I suppose because some people have no problem discarding any evidence that gets in the way of their preconceived misconceptions, it allows them to have such a superior grasp of reality... Yeah OK. Have fun in your little fantasy world. Say hi to the Care Bears and Speed Racer for me. This is the result we have to pay for Bush not funding Mental clinics.

Dan,

Your patronizing attitude does not reflect well on you.

The meaningless ramblings you use to depreciate what others say could well be pointed at you.

Fortunately, I don't have to do anything to point out that your responses are vacuous. They speak for themselves.

What part of "No" 'law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

Dan, I'll try to break this to you as gently as I can...Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam, among others, were 'established' a long time ago. It seems that your fear is not about the establishment of a religion by government, but the government's acceptance of religion. That is certainly your right, but to try and say it's supported by the Constitution is disingenuous.

jpark, while I applaud you for recognizing an interpretation of the establishment clause, you get negative points for failing to recognize that what you propose is also an interpretation. You're decrying the "separationist interpretation" while proposing the "accomodationist interpretation" as the "true" meaning of the amendment. Both are supported by the document itself, and as with lots of the Amendments, interpretation is and was intended in applying the document to the real world. It's already been mentioned (and an example given) that the founders intended the establishment clause to keep religion and government separate. Not only Jefferson, but also Madison, the prime framer and proponent of the document, wrote about the "wall of separation. As Wikipedia notes, Madison explicitly wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Robert Walsh), "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston), "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams), and "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). I won't belabor the "founders' intent" further than that.

But as so many conservatives and liberals here on Newsvine are fond of saying, the Bill of Rights means exactly what the Supreme Court holds it to mean, and nothing other. In this case, the present pertinent case law revolves around Everson v. Board of Education, in which the majority opinion stated

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 form 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 of course, one could go further in noting the Supreme Court's insistence that State and religion not be "excessively entangled" in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist and Sloan v. Lemon. They've consistently ruled against religious displays which have the sole or primary purpose of promoting religion.

So you can play semantic games all night long if you prefer, however, the clear intent of the founders and the rulings of the Supreme Court all indicate that the current law of the land disregards your interpretation for the interpretation favored by Dan. And until the Supreme Court reverses itself on the issue, it's liable to remain that way.

iarnuocon,

I do recognize what the Supreme Court has ruled in respect to the first amendment to the constitution. I do understand that the Supreme Court has the power to create laws, though it is not supposed to do that.

Nevertheless, the first amendment does not contain an 'establishment clause' and does not create a 'wall of separation between church and state'.

The misapplication of an interpretation to the first amendment by the Supreme Court in no way alters the first amendment. It does, however, alter the behavior of our government in relation to that ruling.

My only argument is that the constitution does not erect a wall of separation. Only the courts have erected that wall, in direct opposition to the plain language of the first amendment.

I know I'm gonna regret this, but I'll bite... What law(s) has the Supreme Court created? Please be specific and provide links, if you please.

Well, the one under discussion here for one. The 'establishment clause' creating a 'wall of separation between church and state'.

This concept does not exist in the constitution and did not exist in law until the Supreme Court created it in their rulings.

what an... fill in the blank.

Yes, I believe I already stated that your interpretation isn't the preferred one. Thanks for highlighting that fact, yet again. As far as whether the Constitution creates a wall of separation between church and state, I think it fairly well does so, your disagreement notwithstanding.

Article 6 prohibits any religious test as a prerequisite to holding office, and the Establishment Clause, which is clearly contained in the First Amendment as is the Free Exercise clause, prohibits the government from not only making laws establishing religion, but also from making laws respecting the establishment of religion. That pretty firmly, to my mind, gets government out of the religion business. Of course, this didn't stop the states from setting their own religious rules, since the Establishment Clause only applied to the Federal government, but as of the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of incorporation, that loophole is pretty much done.

Now you can @!$%# about that interpretation, but it sure as hell isn't an arcane interpretation, nor a "manufactured" one (any more than any interpretation, including yours, is "manufactured"). No religious tests, no laws about religion, the words of the founders themselves in terms of the effects intended by the Amendment-- you're fighting an uphill battle to conclude that the Constitution "only" prohibits a national religion. In fact, by your interpretation, it would be possible for the government to establish a national religion in everything but name, without running afoul of the law. Simply preferentially allow only one religion's displays, fund that religion's "secular" endeavors, and give preference to that religion alone, without writing those preferences into law. By your interpretation, nothing untoward would be the result of this, yet this clearly would run counter to the intent of the Constitution and its founders. Which means your interpretation must be wrong at its heart.

I do not agree that the Constitution prohibits religion from the public square (in the sense of the public practice of religion, or religious discussions, et cetera), nor does it prohibit officials from holding religious views, but it does prohibit the government from taking a stand in favor of a religion as an official position.

Any other position appears to render the Amendment meaningless, as well as powerless.

... and did not exist in law until the Supreme Court created it in their rulings.

We're still not connecting here... Please provide the Federal Statute Code # of the law the Supreme Court created. What I'm getting at here is that if you claim the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench, then there is a paper trail that eventually leads to a U.S.C. number identifying that particular law. I want that U.S.C. number... if you please. Please keep in mind that rulings that you happen to disagree with, don't count as "legislating from the bench." Legislating from the bench would mean actually passing legislation, in which case there would be a U.S.C number you could give me a link to. Until I get a link leading to a law passed by the Supreme Court, it's my opinion that you are refering a ruling by the Supreme Court, that you disagree with, which is in no way shape or form... a law.

iarnuocon,

Your post #13.39 I agree with in every respect except your assertion that I disagree and your use of the term 'Establishment Clause'. (I don't necessarily agree with you on the 14th amendment, but that is a different issue than the one under discussion here).

As you point out, Article 6 prohibits any religious test as a prerequisite to holding office. Together, the first amendment and article 6 prevents the federal government from interfering with religious expression, either to promote or to hinder it.

The 'wall of separation' concept implies that the government prohibit religious expression by people -- people elected to office, employees of the government, people in charge of public land and offices, etc. The extension of the 'wall of separation' concept through the 14th amendment multiplies this to all government entities, regional, state and local. Since almost everyone in the U.S. either works for the government or works for a company which receives government funds in some manner, this prohibition against religious expression extends to almost everyone.

My point is that the 'wall of separation' concept is precisely opposite to the meaning of the constitution. The constitution prohibits the government -- not the people. The 'wall of separation' creates the polar opposite of the plain meaning of the constitution.

Jim Dent,

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Of course the courts do not create laws by legislating. They create laws by interpretation of legislation and the constitution. Look up 'Roe vs Wade' as an example of rulings by the court which modified or nullified many state laws.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Of course the courts do not create laws by legislating. They create laws by interpretation of legislation and the constitution.

Then I have to ask why you made the statement...

and did not exist in law until the Supreme Court created it in their rulings.

You see, the Supreme court can do one of two things, it can find a ruling by a previous court constitutional, or unconstitutional. They can't write laws from the bench, or by "interpretation" as you put it. They listen to cases from previous courts and decide either that court was correct in their interpretation of the law, or they weren't. My sole point here is, when the Supreme Court decides a case such as Roe vs. Wade, you conservatives scream bloody murder that the courts are legislating the rule of law, but when they rule in your favor (such as Florida vs. Gore), "the court has spoken" folks... eat your sour grapes and move on for petes sake. You can't have both. Either the Supreme court is the final arbitrator, or the constitutional rule of "checks and balances" means nothing. I suspect that if the Supreme Court were to overturn the ruling on Roe vs. Wade tomorrow, you would be dancing in the streets. But wouldn't that be "legislating from the bench," since that law has been decided over thirty years ago?

Bottom line: Do you believe in the constitutions checks and balances only when it falls in your favor, or do you think it's a fair system?

My point is that the 'wall of separation' concept is precisely opposite to the meaning of the constitution. The constitution prohibits the government -- not the people.

It prohibits both, since we the people are the government. I find it odd that despite all the previous posts citing all the Constitutional writings by Franklin, Jefferson, and others, you cling to the idea that your right and they're wrong. The separation between church and state has endured since long before you were born. And it has prevented this country from becoming a theocracy such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. That alone is justification for the separation of church and state.

Jim,

On your post #13.42 . Why do you presume to know how I feel about a particular court ruling? It is the court's duty to interpret the law. But the courts have interpreted the law based on social agenda. The courts have overturned their own rulings -- again based on social agenda when the legislation did not change. The courts are not infallible. I and every other citizen have a right to say that the court's ruling is in error.

On your post #13.43

And it has prevented this country from becoming a theocracy such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

It has indeed. As it was intended.

I and every other citizen have a right to say that the court's ruling is in error. Absolutely, and I've exercised that same right on a number of occasions. But you should bring some reasoned argument into it, to defend your position. For example, what's this nonsense?

The 'wall of separation' concept implies that the government prohibit religious expression by people -- people elected to office, employees of the government, people in charge of public land and offices, etc.

That's what you call setting up a straw man in order to knock it down. The "wall of separation" concept is quintessentially NOT the concept you express. For instance, how many Presidential candidates (government officials, all) have been prevented from mentioning their religion, or "expressing" the same? None. How many times has President Bush been "prohibited" from expressing his belief in God, or closing his speeches with mention of God? None. You do yourself and your argument a disservice when you make disingenuous statements such as the above, because it doesn't convince people that the wall of separation doctrine is wrong, it convinces people that you don't know what you're talking about.

The concept prohibits the government from taking part in religion. The people who administer government functions can have whatever religious beliefs they want. They can express whatever religious beliefs they want, with the proviso that they speak for themselves, and not utter those beliefs as the official position of the US government. The government is required to be neutral.

This is part and parcel of the whole spurious notion that secularists, et al, are "trying to remove religion from the public square." It's simply bull@!$%#. It's an attempt to conflate "the public square" with "government." Just as your quote above is an attempt to conflate "religious neutrality" with "censorship."

iarnuocon,

The people who administer government functions can have whatever religious beliefs they want. They can express whatever religious beliefs they want, with the proviso that they speak for themselves, and not utter those beliefs as the official position of the US government. The government is required to be neutral.

The ACLU has filed numerous suits, and won many, to prevent that very expression of religion which you state is not prevented by the 'wall of separation' nonsense. You are not unaware of these activities.

The ACLU has filed numerous suits, and won many,

Like removing the Ten Commandments from courthouse (government) property?
Or expressively religious Christmas symbols from government property?

The government which is funded by ALL people had NO business endorsing any one religion in a land that has many religions.. Placing those symbols on government property implicitly endorses it. That's what is illegal under the constitution!

to prevent that very expression of religion

On government property.

By persons acting as representatives of government, rather than as private individuals.

You are not unaware of the distinction.

You presume that individuals on entering government property stop being individuals and must stop being religious or expressing their religion. Of course, if there were and Establishment Clause, it would support that position.

You are not unaware of the distinction.

Apparently he is....

You presume that individuals on entering government property stop being individuals and must stop being religious or expressing their religion. I presume nothing beyond that individuals acting in an official capacity as representatives of the government cannot express their private religious beliefs as the official position of government. I've already given examples where government officials have publicly expressed their religious beliefs as private individuals. Your error comes in conflating one with the other.

But that's your problem, not the Constitution's or the Supreme Court's (or mine, for that matter).

The ACLU has filed numerous suits, and won many, to prevent that very expression of religion which you state is not prevented by the 'wall of separation' nonsense.

Now would be a good time for a citation, jpark. What cases? Where were they filed? Who were the participants? News stories or links to actual cases would be terrific!

The ACLU has a line, which you may not agree with. But it doesn't extend quite so far as you seem to believe it does. The ACLU has argued a number of cases where government has gone too far in prohibiting religious expression. See Adam Kemp's article The ACLU is not evil for a brief overview of some recent cases.

spiffie,

You can do a Google search or go to the ACLU web site as easily as I can.

The ACLU has brought numerous suits to bar anyone who believes in God from having access to any school or municipal property, for example. The Boy Scouts of America have been a particular target due to their assertion that God exists.

If you believe in God, you should be barred from public property.

Any other religion or no religion is OK.

That certainly fulfills the first amendment's prohibition against government interference in religious expression.

The ACLU has brought numerous suits to bar anyone who believes in God from having access to any school or municipal property, for example

Belief in God has nothing to do with it...
Having to swear an oath to God does... That violates religious freedom!!!

The scary part is not what jpark is saying, it's that jpark believes what he says is true.

Dan,

You believe that it is not true? Name any organization which has been targeted by the ACLU on religious issues which does not profess God. What organization professing Hindu, Voudun, Wiccan, atheist, or any other belief has been so targeted?

Seriously... the ACLU has never stood for that.

Hell, following the Columbine shootings my wife wanted to hold a prayer circle before school hours and on school property (with attendence strictly optional).

The school told her she couldn't do it and that they'd take steps to ensure that she didn't.

The ACLU told the school that if she was stopped they could expect the notification of the lawsuit the next morning.

Call me crazy, but that sounds like a case where the ACLU stood up for a Christian on public property.

First of all, atheism isn't a belief, it's a LACK of belief!!
And I don't remember the government, in any way, funding or space or displays, backing anyone doing VooDoo, Witchcraft or any others....
So why would they be targeted?

You can do a Google search or go to the ACLU web site as easily as I can.

jpark, I've been through the ACLU website before to support my contentions regarding their work re: religious freedom, so it's a complete mystery to me how you could come to the conclusion about them that you did. If I'm going to have any hope of understanding your viewpoint, I'm going to need you to provide me with specific cases where you felt the ACLU behaved in the manner you attributed to them. I'm not a mind reader that I can just be expected to know what you mean.

Otherwise, maybe you could actually look into the cases yourself and consider revising your statement.

Name any organization which has been targeted by the ACLU on religious issues which does not profess God.

First, you're equivocating over what we're arguing about. This is about separation of church and state and the establishment clause, which specifically enjoins the government from policies which favor one faith over another (by current interpretation, of course, understanding the nature of the debate above). This isn't an argument over just any organization.

Now that this is clear, name any government organization in which Hindus, Vouduns, Wicca, or atheists hold primary sway and/or the power to deliberately or accidentally, through systematic or systemic action, favor one faith over another.

Nice way to avoid the question by redirection.

I don't care how many people of other faiths (or no faith) hold government office or work for the government.

The question was about the ACLU targeting organizations which believe in God (the God of Abraham) if they use any public property for any purpose. The ACLU has never to my knowledge (and apparently yours as well) targeted any other individual or group for use of public property if that individual or group did not believe in God.

It's not redirection (in the sense of misdirection). I'm attempting to focus you back on the question at hand, which, as I read this thread, is the concept of separation of church and state and the establishment clause in the US Constitution, none of which has anything to do with "just any" organization. These are very specific questions dealing with how government treats religion.

As I see it, you're attempting to derail the conversation into areas that have nothing to do with these questions. Why would the ACLU sue a Hindu group over an establishment clause violation? Why would anyone?

Why would the ACLU sue a Hindu group over an establishment clause violation? Why would anyone?

No reason at all. No valid reason for the ACLU to sue over use of public property by a group which believes in God either.

It's not redirection (in the sense of misdirection). I'm attempting to focus you back on the question at hand...

Fine. You were the one who said you wanted further discussion of the ACLU. We can stop that now.

No, what I wanted was specific examples of behavior by the ACLU that you feel support your contentions. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable. I want to know what's informing your viewpoint.

spiffie, how dare you make such an outlandish request? Do you actually expect jpark to give any proof to any of his unfounded and misguided assertions? He's a troll, he doesn't need evidence and never has. It gets in the way of his argument. Give him time to edit research wikapedia or something so he can have the link. Be reasonable.

jpark:

Your reasoning here is so convoluted that it's literally mind boggling. I am tempted to think that you have never actually visited the ACLU website yourself, and are just parrotting what your local pastor or Pat Robertson had to say about them. Otherwise, you would be able to cite specific cases to support your arguments.

That's one of the problems with blind faith. The person ends up believing not only in the deity, but also in those who claim to represent that deity (priests, pastors, ministers, etc.). You take what they tell you from the pulpit on faith, without bothering to look into it for yourself - then come to a discussion like this and start spouting off a bunch of nonsense that anyone who has graduated high school could refute. Then, instead of admitting you're wrong (which means admitting your preacher either didn't know what he/she was talking about, or outright lied to you), you staunchly defend an indefensible position.

I wonder, when is the last time you actually set foot in a government building? I do quite frequently. Every time I walk into one, I encounter government employees wearing yarmulkes or the traditional garb of Hasidic Judaism, crucifixes and WWJD bracelets, Muslim veils or attire, etc. IF, as you claim, government workers were barred from expressing their religious beliefs in any form, then these folks would have to leave their religious symbols at home.

But they don't, because every human being in this country has the right to free expression of their religion, including wearing religious symbols, without interference. What the law does say is that these folks, in their capacity as government workers, may not preach to others, deny services to anyone based on religious differences, or do anything to denigrate the religious views of their coworkers or the clients they serve.

How does that apply to this discussion? Just as the workers are not allowed to force their religious views on coworkers or clients, the government is not allowed to force one religious view on the American public. This INCLUDES not favoring the symbols of one religion over another (such as having a nativity scene on the lawn, but no menorah, or having those but no symbols reflecting the Solstice or Quanzaa, etc.) Further, the government should never be the one paying for those symbols to be erected (including huge marble statues of the ten commandments).

The United States Government is, and must always be, religion neutral. The government IS a secular entity, as it was intended to be by our founding fathers. If you don't like that, there are plenty of other nations where religion and government are so intertwined that you can't tell the difference between them. You can always move to one of those, but don't be surprised if you find the grass was far greener here in the USA.

PS:

When you say...

Name any organization which has been targeted by the ACLU on religious issues which does not profess God.

...I have to wonder which God you're talking about (there are thousands of them you know - enough for every religion that has ever existed on the planet).

Then again, it's entirely possible that the entity the Muslims call Allah is the same entity you call God, and the Jews call Yahweh, and the same that other religions also worship. In fact, as a Christian who believes that there is only "one God", you would have to believe that all these other faiths are worshipping the same God you do - or else admit there is more than one God.

So which is it? If all religions worship the same god by different names, then the only way your statement about the ACLU would be true is if they only defended atheists (which they don't). And if there are many different gods, then which one is it that you think the ACLU is leaving out, and can you actually back up that claim with some citations?

You believe that it is not true? Name any organization which has been targeted by the ACLU on religious issues which does not profess God. What organization professing Hindu, Voudun, Wiccan, atheist, or any other belief has been so targeted?

Hindu and Wicca have more Gods than Christianity, do you know anything about government OR religion? this is the kind of pious ignorance that makes people like me hate people like Jpark. Sheep, all of them. Dumb, ignorant sheep.

In fact, as a Christian who believes that there is only "one God", you would have to believe that all these other faiths are worshipping the same God you do - or else admit there is more than one God.

Or take the popular Christian path of just saying all of those religions are wrong and it's followers are heathens to burn on judgment day. But the Jews are right, because the Christians had to steal some of their ideology.

Mars313,

I don't think there are any gods in Hinduism. I could be wrong, but when reading up on it a while ago their five "gods" actually represent essences, or representation of certain qualities, I think. Raat ki Raani knows much more than I. Way more. I've also read that practitioners of Hinduism don't consider it to be a religion per se, more of a lifestyle.

Hinduism is a diverse family of devotional and ascetic cults and philosophical schools, all sharing a belief in reincarnation and involving the worship of one or more of a large pantheon of gods and goddesses, including Shiva and Vishnu (incarnate as Rama and Krishna), Kali, Durga, Parvati, and Ganesh. Hindu society was traditionally based on a caste system. Krishna, is worshiped in several forms: as the child god whose miracles and pranks are extolled in the Puranas; as the divine cowherd whose erotic exploits, esp. with his favorite, Radha, have produced both romantic and religious literature; and as the divine charioteer who preaches to Arjuna on the battlefield in the Bhagavadgita.

Thanks, Dan. I knew I was missing a bunch of stuff on that.

I didn't know it all ether so don't give me too much credit. Just the Hari Krishna dudes that used to bug me at the airports with flowers, It was all in this dictionary thingy that came with my 'puter. I just highlight the word and right click and it asks if i want to look it up... so i did. :)