ACLU and "conservative" causes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just one of the many of the nits I pick...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and [/u]among[/u] the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To regulate commerce among the states is a bit different than regulating commerce with the states. If words are to mean anything, then there was a reason the founders choose the preposition "among" over the preposition "with," as they did as regards foreign nations and indian tribes.
"For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged." James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell, Letters 4:14--15, 13 Feb. 1829
So, yeah. I'm at odds with the Courts (and the Congress) and how they've interpreted that clause.
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I'm no Clarence Darrow but to me that means that congress cant make a law establishing a religion.
Stage 2,
If that's what they meant, that's what they would have said. Read 'an establishment of religion' as an organized church. And I don't know who's against free exercise. The ACLU isn't, not even in school.
See, this is where framers' intent comes into play and why the Constitution must be interpreted; people may (intentionally or otherwise) misread it. The question isn't what a phrase means to you, it's what it meant to them.
We know exactly what Jefferson meant when he wrote it because of the Danbury Baptist letter:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & 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."
Original on file at the Library of Congress

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.
Which makes for a nice bumper sticker, but isn't really really true. It means both freedom for your religion as well as freedom from somebody else's religion. Again, referring to the author:
Freedom of religion, restricted only from acts of trespass on that of others
T. Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823

Your freedom to pray as you wish is not to be infringed regardless of where you are, but it stops where somebody else's begins. If you are a representative of the state on state property and executing your official duties, you are barred from showing a preference.

I can assure you, that is *exactly* what the founders intended.
 
Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

Yes, it does. You can't have freedom of religion without also having freedom from religion...namely the religions you don't wish to follow. If you have the freedom to be a Christian, you must necessarily have the freedom to not be a Muslim or Buddhist or what-have-you.

As far as prayer in schools, I don't see how this can violate anything. If I say that I pray, can anyone here tell me what my faith is? I don't think so. Prayer doesn't respect the establishment of a religion any more than taking a nap does. Furthermore making it voluntary quashes any complaints from athiests.

Nobody says you (or your children) can't pray in school. Kids pray in school all the time, and there's hardly a middle or high school in the South that doesn't have a prayer or Bible club. That's perfectly fine, and doesn't violate the Constitution, as long as the prayer isn't led or initiated by school officials.

Its this kind of stuff that shows how so many people have twisted and perverted the words of the constitution so much that what was originally intended to prevent congress from making a law supporting a particular religion now means that a 5th grade teacher can no longer put up a christmas tree.

Would you feel differently if the same teacher put up a menorah for Hanukkah, or led the class in prayer to Mecca during Ramadan?
 
Would you feel differently if the same teacher put up a menorah for Hanukkah, or led the class in prayer to Mecca during Ramadan?
That happened in my 4th grade class once! Everything was hunky dory until the last one. There were a pair of Muslim siblings in the class so she did just that and by the time winter break was over she wasn't our teacher anymore. :( No one had a problem with the tree or the menorah.
 
To Glen E. Meyer...

To cut to the chase, the argument is because the advocates of religious symbols in school want specifically to have Christian symbols. I regard that as a socialism of religion.

It leads to theocracy if pushed in schools especially.


To Redworm: MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU!! Also to your post about the teacher who led a Muslim prayer and then was no longer a teacher. That's EXACTLY why religion and school should not mix, if you worship on your own time that's fine with me, just don't expect me to particpate if I don't want to follow your religion. Reminds me of an incident I had in 3rd grade, when I didn't feel like singing Christmas songs or making Christmas related items. I got in trouble for that, what gives? Why weren't Muslim holidays being represented in class, I thought to myself at that time.

Funny how those who want religion publically displayed are all for it as long as it's "their god" on display. Yet when someone else comes along all of a sudden it's "evil and un-Constitutional" or they do whatever they can to get the other person's symbol removed. Also ironic that most of these people ignore the First Amendment clause where it says specifically,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

That clause states that government should be neutral to religion, and let people pick their own faiths on their personal time. When I was still a Muslim it was my choice, I didn't push my beliefs on anyone or brand them an "infidel" for not converting. Yet I live in a country where the majority religion preaches that if I don't convert I'll face "hellfire and brimstone". Rather ironic for a land that's supposed to champion equality and freedom of religion.


Epyon

EDIT: I'm all for people showing their religion on THEIR OWN BUILDINGS, but pelase... do the melting pot of America a favor and DON'T display religious symbols on school walls and courthouses etc. I believe I've brought up the point that if the Muslim crecent moon and star was displayed in a courthouse it'd cause people to go crazy over it, yet if it's the cross it's all good because it represents one group. Rather unjust in a building that is supposed to represent justice.
 
I wonder if folks would think that 'voluntary' is a dandy standard if you little child was forced to 'voluntarily' choose to leave the room for a Muslim prayer.

Voluntary usually means putting nonChristian little kids in the socially uncomfortable position of dissenting from the majority religion. As we know bullying and discrimination is common is schools.

As I said again - prayer in school, led by a state employee is usually thought of as a Christian prayer or a watered down Christian prayer (no Jesus specifically). The Christman tree is seen as nonChristian by Christians when it appears in the school. Bizaare isn't it.

Who is so crappy a parent, that they can't teach their kids their faith - they must have the power of the state doing their job? Obviously, they want the state to enforce actual or social compliance to their faith as the dominant one.

Listen, if you want a totalitarian state with forced religion, no free speech and torture - Do we have some countries for you to move to!!
 
Last edited:
To Redworm: MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU!! Also to your post about the teacher who led a Muslim prayer and then was no longer a teacher. That's EXACTLY why religion and school should not mix, if you worship on your own time that's fine with me, just don't expect me to particpate if I don't want to follow your religion.
I agree but I should clarify. She didn't lead the class in a prayer, she simply put up some Muslim symbols along with the tree and menorah. I don't remember exactly what they were but she pretty much got in trouble just for trying to represent the Muslim faith alongside the other ones. She didn't want the Muslim siblings left out and the bible thumpers in that district then decided it was wrong to have religious symbols in schools. She'd never had a problem with it before because she'd never had Muslim students before.
 
by GoSlash27:
See, this is where framers' intent comes into play and why the Constitution must be interpreted; people may (intentionally or otherwise) misread it. The question isn't what a phrase means to you, it's what it meant to them.
We know exactly what Jefferson meant when he wrote it because of the Danbury Baptist letter:
We do not "know exactly what Jefferson meant when he wrote it" because Jefferson was not the author of the First Amendment; that honor belongs to Madison.
 
Many wish to replace the actual language of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;") with a more assertive phrase ("a wall of separation between church and state"). Those who point to Jefferson's January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists as definitive in distancing government and religion conveniently forget that two days later, on January 3, 1802, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives.

From the Library of Congress
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Thomas Jefferson (and James Madison, who was the author of the First Amendment) permitted church services in government buildings and attended those services. Jefferson's actions appear to be at odds with what some interpret him to have meant when he used the phrase "wall of separation" in the letter to the Danbury Baptists.
 
Glenn E. Meyer, I understand your argument and as far as the display of any religious symbol, does it by itself, in the display attempt to teach, proclaim, or profess anything other than the fact that it is there, anymore that driving down the road and seeing a billboard, displaying a product, for sale or use, do you feel threatened by this form of display, I should think not, but because it is a Religious Symbol it is totally taboo.

And you stated that as long as the thing was not promoted by the School, or the Factuality, it was OK, but by the same token that isn’t a true statement, because there have been times when the tradition of saying a Prayer before a sporting event at a School has been banned as Unconstitutional because of the Separation of Church and State, and the simple act of a moment of silence for a Prayer is or at least has been Taboo, yet the Congress of this Country open every session with a Prayer, as so do the Senate and the Proceedings of the Supreme Court, so it is to me a whole lot of Hypocrisy going on here in this issue, and the fact that the people that profess to be Atheist in this country have raised a lot of issues that are in some cases OK but in others Not, point in question was the Pledge of Allegiance, if a student or Citizen chooses not to recite the Pledge it is perfectly aright, they have the right to refrain, But they do not have the right to cause or to implement the rewriting if said Pledge because they don’t like it, which goes along with the Minority raising issue with long standing Symbols used by City, State, and Federal Governments to be changed because the voice of the Few feel it goes against the things the do or do not believe in.

As to the display of any Religious Symbol in any Public Place I personally find no problem with this concept, just because it is displayed is not an intimidating factor that I can see in fact it may be in fact a good thing as some may wonder what this or that is all about, it may even encourage people to find out about a different religion to see what the other people believe in and maybe just maybe have a better understanding of those people nut I know that this practice is not recommended by the different Faiths as they are afraid they will loose their congregation to the other side.

I agree that it is not the responsibility of the State to remind our children of their Faith nut Neither should it deny access to it, as granted by the First Amendment, Before you get all upset, I am not saying that the School should teach Religion as a doctrine. Along these same lines I don’t think it is Right to teach Evolution with out the Counter to it, yet it is permitted today in many school systems, Knowledge is a valuable tool to the student but not when it is spoon-fed and only teaching those things that are to the public liking in regard to honest subject matter, like omitting facts from the History books as if they no longer are a part of history anymore, but that is totally a different subject.

I don’t see one faith dominating the Schools with the exception of the Religious based schools, what I do see is a large degree of the lack of confidence in the American People to lack the ability to recognize the difference between a simple display of a thing as opposed to the actual teaching of the demand to learn of a ting simply because it has been displayed before them, I would rather hold to the idea that the American People are mature enough to understand that they are not being forced to be anything against their will, and if they are intimidated by the simple display of an object regardless of what it is then I truly feel sorry for them.

“If you are ready to have a picture of Vishnu or Satan next to the Cross, Star and Crescent - say that here”. It would not bother me in the least, so bring it on they don’t intimidate me in any way shape or form!
 
But they do not have the right to cause or to implement the rewriting if said Pledge because they don’t like it,
The original version of the pledge did not include "under god". It's only there because it was rewritten.

Along these same lines I don’t think it is Right to teach Evolution with out the Counter to it,
Because at the moment there is no counter to it in the realm of science.
It would not bother me in the least, so bring it on they don’t intimidate me in any way shape or form!
So what if the star & crescent on a courthouse intimidates you but a cross intimidates someone else? Why should your beliefs get preferential treatment?
 
Marko Kloos Said, "Yes, it does. You can't have freedom of religion without also having freedom from religion...namely the religions you don't wish to follow. If you have the freedom to be a Christian, you must necessarily have the freedom to not be a Muslim or Buddhist or what-have-you".

I fail totally to understand this statement at all, are you not an adult, with the capability to say yes, or no to anything, that is offered before you! Come on get real!
 
I fail totally to understand this statement at all, are you not an adult, with the capability to say yes, or no to anything that is offered before you! Come on get real!
Why is a Muslim or Jew or atheist or Buddhist or Hindu still required to place a hand on a bible when swearing in for testimony in a court room? One is not free to practice one's religion if one must conform to the standards of someone else's religion.
 
Wouldn't it be easier not to have state based displays of faith then have them. NO one denies access in the private domain. Why does the Christian need to have it in a state domain. I know Jews, Jains, Hindus and Muslims. Never met one that wanted the state to put up their stuff in school.

As far as prayer before a game - that's purely Christians wanted to have a Christian moment at the game. It is has been reported over and over that coaches and schools have made such specifically Christian until shut down.

I remember in TX an argument over an explicit prayer to Jesus at the high school game. It was stopped. One proposed settlement was to have a rotating religious dude for the games - a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim. A young lady was interviewed on the news. She objected to the Muslim as this was America.

Kelly J - I'm sorry but your position is really sophistry. It is attempting to rationalize a state support of Christianity in the schools, however you try to slice it. Your comment on evolution is diagnosis. There is no evidence for literal creationism. Some scientists and preachers have presented false evidence to avoid this. Teaching a biblical creation under the rubric of science is exactly what we have to fear.

Should we teach all the creation myths as of equal value? I'd bet that Christians would go ballistic on that one. The Hindu myths are more congruent with modern science.

No, let religion be at home. There is no reason to present religion as some kind of supernatural truth in the schools. We've even found that courses in comparative religion quickly (in the k-12) become Christian in content. Such contexts are seen as intimidating, except for those in the majority.

We see defenders of liberty (or the RKBA) go through convolutions to support:

1. Suppression of free speech
2. Torture
3. State support of a specific religion

That's not what I think America is about. It sound surprising like some other charming places. It's rather sad.
 
On the ideas of religion and public symbols...

Well now that the cat's out of the bag on this, I might as well flat out say it. The majority of people in this country are Christians, however there's also a very significant number of non-Christians in this country as well. Why is it that it's perfectly okay for Christians to display their symbols of faith on public land, yet the crescent and star of Islam is not okay? What about the Baphomet of Satanism? The Pentacle of Wicca? How about the image of the Buddha? As I've said, freedom of religion is totally a great idea just don't use public land to push your faith, do it on your own property. If Christians say mixing faith and politics is okay then why can't we have EVERY faith's symbol haning on public lands? What? Too crowded then? No more focus on your symbol? Then let's solve the problem and put up NO religious symbol, as for representation let's put up a symbol EVERYONE in this country would be more inclined to agree on, how about the good old stars and stripes? Or the bald eagle? There we go that's better.


Epyon
 
This discussion has remained pleasantly civil, considering the contentious subject matter, and let's end it on that note. Four pages ought to be enough for everyone to speak their mind, and anyone not convinced by their debate opponents by now most likely won't be convinced in another eight pages.

Thank you all for debating this matter in a fairly even-handed way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top