Separation of Church and State

[Berzerker]

So since you have to go to school, that means that you are coerced into seeing everything on the walls? Is someone going around to make sure you are looking at the crosses?

The appearance of a cross within your view is not coercion.

Does this also mean you'd be ok with big cross in the town council room if it was privately paid for?

Yup

Like right at the front? Because you don't have to go to town council meetings.

Dont matter to me where they put it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now we cant display our religious symbols on public land because thats coercion?

Only if everyone can do it. If I can put up a Wiccan symbol on the lawn, then you can do your manger. Unfortunetly that isn't how it works. As you say later, you need a permit, and Wiccans don't get permits for their religious displays. Satanists don't get permits for their displays.

If you opened it up and said that you can have an X by X plot of land on the lawn to put up whatever religious symbol you wanted (as long as it isn't something like nudity [though that could create problems] or racial hatred) then fine, go ahead.

I do not equate a "permit" to use public land with a law that says we must ask permission to use public land. The permit doesn't "ask" us to do anything, the law does.

Granting a permit isn't the same as passing an ordinance? The city council has to vote for both. The permit asks the person to ask permission from the government to put his thing on public land.

No, and whether or not it is ok is up to the people sending their kids to the school to decide.

So, in Berzerker's reading, the Constitution allows for crosses and pictures of Jesus to be on the walls of public schools and not be considered an establishment of religion.

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME?!

So far the only argument you've offered

Actually my main argument is that 'coercion' isn't stated in the Constitution. Establishment can just as easy be 'endorsement', and that is what O'Conner argues. Coercion, I believe, is Kennedy's test.

A subargument is that a manger scene, by itself, on the lawn can be coercive, just as a cross on the wall of a school.

he appearance of a religious symbol on public land coerces people who want to be a bigshot but feel they cant without... without...eh... what was that nonsense you came up with? Oh yeah, the manger scene is a religious test employed by the powerful to keep non-believers out of power.

Read mrmitchell's post. Of course you don't consider it coercive. You are a Christian. Try to see it from someone who isn't. A manger scene, by itself, indicates that this town, or state, or country backs that one religion and if you aren't of that religion, you aren't one of the favored in the community and you won't ever be.

Think about if you are trying to get an ordinance passed and your opposition is a church, or Hell, just a good Christian man. Your name shows that your are probably a Buddhist or Hindu. Don't you think that that manger scene out front may put some questions in your mind whether the council decision was judged on the merits or, rather, on the religious beliefs of the two people standing before them?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Orginally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Does this also mean you'd be ok with big cross in the town council room if it was privately paid for?

Yup

And here we see the utter... insanity of Berzerker's position.

I think that that one interplay indicates that your views should be given no merit whatsoever on this issue. If that isn't establishment, then frankly, there is no such thing.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dracon II
My third question is, is there a practical basis for such a separation being enforced, even if it is not implied in the literal wording of the clause?

Sure.

If you don't enforce the separaton some fundie group will always try to wiggle religion into politics and/or other aspects of other people's life.

Personally I see the Separation of Church and State the flip side of religious freedom. Politics doesn't go meddle in religion, but religion cannot go meddle in politics.

[Berzerker]

Only if everyone can do it. If I can put up a Wiccan symbol on the lawn, then you can do your manger.

You mean if we all can coerce each other its no longer coercion? I dont believe in either, so am I being coerced now if the Wiccans and Christians can put up their symbols?

Unfortunetly that isn't how it works. As you say later, you need a permit, and Wiccans don't get permits for their religious displays. Satanists don't get permits for their displays.

Umm...what are their holidays? The fact someone allegedly didn't get a permit doesn't make manger scenes coercive.

The permit asks the person to ask permission from the government to put his thing on public land.

Hehe, thats funny. No, that would be the ordinance requiring us to ask for permission. The permit is proof we got permission.

So, in Berzerker's reading, the Constitution allows for crosses and pictures of Jesus to be on the walls of public schools and not be considered an establishment of religion.

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME?!

You asked me if a cross on the wall is coercive, I said it is not. Its bizarre how you can argue that the Pledge is not coercive but a mute symbol is coercive. According to you, that cross is coercive until another non-Christian religious symbol is put up on the wall. Then that cross is no longer coercive...

Actually my main argument is that 'coercion' isn't stated in the Constitution.

Neither is separation of church and state. But since the establishment clause is preceded by the words "Congress shall make no law", it doesn't take James Madison to figure out coercion must be a factor if the establishment clause is violated.

Establishment can just as easy be 'endorsement', and that is what O'Conner argues. Coercion, I believe, is Kennedy's test

That endorsement requires a law before it violates the 1st Amendment.

A subargument is that a manger scene, by itself, on the lawn can be coercive, just as a cross on the wall of a school.

Unless you have video of the baby Jesus mugging people walking by, thats just loony.

Read mrmitchell's post. Of course you don't consider it coercive. You are a Christian. Try to see it from someone who isn't. A manger scene, by itself, indicates that this town, or state, or country backs that one religion and if you aren't of that religion, you aren't one of the favored in the community and you won't ever be.

I'm not a Christian. And that isn't seeing it from someone who isn't a Christian, thats seeing it as someone who is ignorant of our system. If they did a little investigating they'd learn they can put up symbols too. But yes, I imagine Bill Gates and all the other people who run this country can be seen standing next to manger scenes noting who shows up to pay homage to Jesus. Manger scenes being of course gathering grounds for the rich and powerful...

Think about if you are trying to get an ordinance passed and your opposition is a church, or Hell, just a good Christian man. Your name shows that your are probably a Buddhist or Hindu. Don't you think that that manger scene out front may put some questions in your mind whether the council decision was judged on the merits or, rather, on the religious beliefs of the two people standing before them?

Eliminating the manger scene will eliminate the biases of gov't employees?

And here we see the utter... insanity of Berzerker's position.

I think that that one interplay indicates that your views should be given no merit whatsoever on this issue. If that isn't establishment, then frankly, there is no such thing.

How about a law requiring me to display a cross on my front door? Hmm...I just cited an example of a 1st Amendment violation when there is no such example...according to you...

[Agathon]

The justification for it is the move from "perfectionist" to "contractarian" systems of political philosophy.

So it goes back all the way to Locke and Hobbes.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Well, jerkwad, did he specify? No, then I'll answer from my perspective on the constitution I'm familiar with, and frankly the only one I care about. Unlike some people who shoot their mouth off about things of which they have no baseline of knowledge, just opinions based off MTV, CNN, and their fraternity late night drunk sessions.
So take that and stuff it up your ass.

The world as seen and experienced from Texas.


I'm just basking in the glow of love emanating from this post, and the heartfelt concern for other human beings inhabiting the globe who (poor souls) don't live in the Burning Bush Republic of Texas or the United States.

Remember, Sloww, god is love.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath


Yes, they're called Muslims.

Isn't it fundy Christians who get upset in the U.S. when they feel that ostentatious displays and endorsements of their religion aren't allowed on government property ?


'Government of the people by the people for the people'- not just selected branches of the Christianista franchise.

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.

Thomas Jefferson, 'Statute For Religious Freedom', 1779

If your tax dollars support the government, and the government erects a 'manger display' on government property, you (and the state) are subsidising the promotion of a particular creed, whether you or the government subscribe to that creed or not.

I would have thought given the experiences of religious refugees who fled to the United States that people would be wary of government support or enthusiasm for any faith or subset of a faith.

"Enforced uniformity confounds civil and religious liberty and denies the principles of Christianity and civility.That cannot be a true religion which needs carnal weapons to uphold it.

No man shall be required to worship or maintain a worship against his will."

Roger Williams: 'The Bloudy Tenet of Persecution' published 1644.

Williams was a stubborn, righteous and remarkable 17th-century man. Not only was he Rhode Island's founder and the progenitor of church-state separation, he also made friends with Native Americans and learned the language of the Narragansetts; he believed the Indians ought to be compensated for land taken by white Colonists.

He was a Puritan minister who emigrated from England to the Massachusetts Bay Colony with his wife, Mary, in 1631. Williams questioned the legitimacy of government and church in Massachusetts, where church membership was required for voting, and was especially troubled by the use of the Christian religion as a justification for depriving the Indians of their land without compensation or negotiation.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/26975

[Jon Miller]

seperation of church and state is incredibly important

both for the church, and the state

I think a lot of what is wrong with christianity in europe, is that it was connected with the state for so long..

Jon Miller

[StarLightDeath]

The world as seen and experienced from Texas.


I'm just basking in the glow of love emanating from this post, and the heartfelt concern for other human beings inhabiting the globe who (poor souls) don't live in the Burning Bush Republic of Texas or the United States.

Remember, Sloww, god is love.

Yeah...how much did Britain pay in foreign aid last year? How much did British citizens donate to tsunami disaster relief and other charitable causes? I guess we should be like Britain and show our heartfelt concern for the rest of the world by allowing a bunch of muslims in to the country who don't identify themselves as Americans...kind of like what you guys do in Britain and the rest of Europe. Maybe you should stop your incessant US bashing for just a second and try fixing your own ****ed up little world because Europe is alot worse off than the US. Then again, maybe that's why Europeans hate America so much? Envy is a sin you know.

[StarLightDeath]

Isn't it fundy Christians who get upset in the U.S. when they feel that ostentatious displays and endorsements of their religion aren't allowed on government property ?

Actually there are Jewish displays with Christian displays all the time. In fact, in the effort to be politically correct, there was a city in Florida that denied a Christian display but allowed a Jewish display. Most of the time though the two are shown together. You don't see wiccan displays because wiccans are incredibly rare and those people don't go through the trouble of displaying one. You don't see islamic displays because again, they are an incredibly small percentage. Imran sits on here and whines but do you see him trying to put up a display? No, because he knows the public won't take well to it so he'd rather just see none up there. There are two groups who whine all the time and that is atheists and muslims. Oh, and I can imagine how Imran feels as he's walking down the street and sees a menorah and a cross side by side...really puts a smile on my face.

[Odin]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath


Yeah...how much did Britain pay in foreign aid last year? How much did British citizens donate to tsunami disaster relief and other charitable causes? I guess we should be like Britain and show our heartfelt concern for the rest of the world by allowing a bunch of muslims in to the country who don't identify themselves as Americans...kind of like what you guys do in Britain and the rest of Europe. Maybe you should stop your incessant US bashing for just a second and try fixing your own ****ed up little world because Europe is alot worse off than the US. Then again, maybe that's why Europeans hate America so much? Envy is a sin you know.

Actually, IIRC, Norway is the most generous if you go by % of GDP.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are two groups who whine all the time and that is atheists and muslims.

Really?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/national/main612805.shtml

Regale us with more stories, oh ignorant one!

It appears quite obvious to rational folk that Christians tend to whine far more than atheists or Muslims. Christians try to play up a persecution complex in a country where THEY are the majority! It's unreal!

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath


Yeah...how much did Britain pay in foreign aid last year? How much did British citizens donate to tsunami disaster relief and other charitable causes?

In terms of both per capita and as a percentage of GDP, considerably more than the US.

For the tsunami, according to Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2326909.htm):

US - $857 million government, $1.775 billion private
UK - $445 million government, $663 million private

Total foreign aid, according to OECD (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/3/35389786.pdf):

US (2004) - $19 billion
UK (2004) - $7.8 billion

[Berzerker]

If your tax dollars support the government, and the government erects a 'manger display' on government property, you (and the state) are subsidising the promotion of a particular creed, whether you or the government subscribe to that creed or not.

This isn't about gov't erecting a manger scene

I would have thought given the experiences of religious refugees who fled to the United States that people would be wary of government support or enthusiasm for any faith or subset of a faith.

The gov't allowing us to practice our religions, even putting up symbols on public lands, does not constitute a law respecting an establishment of religion. The notion that the Framers would have banned such displays is ridiculous.