Separation of church and state a "lie" according to Katherine Harris

Status
Not open for further replies.
But that's not where we are today because the left did in fact move first and most effectively to drive home their interpretation instead.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to disagree with that interpretation. The left did not "move first". The secularization trend since the late 1950s merely got back on somewhat neutral ground which the religious majority had claimed as their own. Fifty years ago, children did not have a choice whether to say a prayer in school or not--they had to say one, regardless of their religious affiliation. Religious preference was enshrined in law...my own home state of Tennessee still has a provision in its state laws that prohibits a non-Christian from holding public office. (If that's not the state taking sides in religious matters, I don't know what is.)

Nowadays children have a choice whether to pray in school or not, and if they pray, they are free to say whatever prayer they want. That old saw about "taking God out of school" is deliberately misleading, just like the Brady's "seventeen kids killed by gunfire every day". I spend a lot of time in elementary school classrooms, and there are plenty of kids who bring their Bibles as reading material. All children are free to pray on their own time on school grounds, provided it doesn't conflict with schoolwork. Virtually every public high school in the country has a Prayer Club or some sort of religious clubs.

The only thing that has changed is that teachers (taxpayer-funded employees of the state) may not initiate or lead the children in prayer to avoid the appearance of the state endorsing one religion over others. What's so earth-shaking and objectionable about that?
 
But then you'd have to accept a courthouse lawn containing Pagan, Wiccan and Scientology symbols
Click to expand...

Correct.

paid by you.
Click to expand...

Wrong. ...the government does not restrict NOR ENDORSE the free expression of religion... That means YOU pay for your own display. That means if you can't get together enough money and/or enough people you don't get a display because it is your religion and thus your responsibility. Ain't gonna cost me a dime.

You'd rather shove every single religious symbol you can find onto government property - and require the rest of us to pay for it! - than take the simple route and say no religious symbols at all?
Click to expand...

As per above, we aren't paying for it. It's not the job of government to fund it or restrict it. OTOH, YOU really want to either define this issue by cost, or throw yet another restriction on everybody? I oppose either.

Marko, I can't reply to you properly without taking the time to do a bunch of research and produce a bunch of links and I just don't have the time, interest or energy for it right now. No offense, I am just tired, old and slow lately.

Suffice to say the religious majority appears to have pretty well set the trend from day one thru majority view, while the secular minority used the federal courts to alter things since they lacked the power at the voting booth. To me that goes directly against the idea of "We The People". Rather than argue about it on a personal level, though, I simply put my kids in a private Christian school from day one. Saved me a LOT of headaches.
 
Who pays for the courthouse?

So what happens when the Christians want to put the manger on the lawn but the Wiccans want to put their stuff instead? What if both won't fit? Who gets to put theirs up? What if the mangers gets put up and takes up all the space but then the Pagans want to put their displays up?
 
Marko Kloos, you have said everything I would have said. So all I can add is "+1."

For some of the other commentators: there are an awful lot of people on both the Left and Right who groove on feeling victimized. Might do us all good to take a few minutes every so often to consider if we're among them.
 
As long as we don't start fighting wars over religion, I'm happy. That, I believe, was the idea in the mind of those who wrote the constitution. Don't know what was in the Articles of Confederation. At the time, it had not been long since Europe had suffered more from religious wars than it did in WWII. On the other hand, to be frank, most religious or sectarian wars are really about other things anyway. The American Revolution was certainly not fought for religious reasons (and no one here said it was). Nevertheless, American churches, some at least, went through a period of confusion after disestablishment. Of course, that was an opportunity for the non-conformists.

Does Harris believe that only Christians (and probably only some of them) are moral?
 
"What if the mangers gets put up and takes up all the space but then the Pagans want to put their displays up?"

We need to learn to compromise. How about if the pagans get to sacrafice the sheep and goats after the Christians finish with them? Would that work?

John
 
We need to learn to compromise.
Click to expand...
lol yeah, because religions are really good at doing that :P

What if I decide to start my own religion and demand equal representation? I demand that the Flying Spaghetti Monster be given equal time on the court house lawn and the government has no place saying that it doesn't recognize me and my followers as a genuine religion.
 
A reasoned discussion so far. My view is that there is no reason for the state ever to mention any religious faith at all. I think the country is better served without such. The only reason for one group or another to have the state mention religion is to give their belief structure an advantage in the public arena. That only leads to strife.

In the USA, one has adequate opportunities to freely practice religion. Why does one need a state sanction such as prayer in school, endorsement of faith by government officials or the like? It's sort of a socialism of religion.

Historically, one doesn't see official faith based states where the religion is active in governance (rather than being some slogan in passing - like In God We Trust - really contributing as much to the progress of Western Civilization. Religious based governance leads to the suppression of dissent and science.

The arguments against the separation of Church and State are usually made by those who want the state to endorse their belief set and use the power of the state to subsidize their religion. Yes, let's make kids pray or let's control personal behavior based on my religion, rather than an empirical basis to control such behavior.

One can pound the Founding Fathers argument into the ground. That is in fact the debate style of the overly religious. The resort to authority as compared to evaluating whether in today's world, a concept is a good idea.

It is clear in the early Constitution, some bad things were OK - like slavery and the voting practices.

Do we think that an endorsement of our country's government of religion or specifically a small group's version of Christianity will benefit us. I certainly don't think so. Philosophically I am against forced beliefs. You should come to your beliefs by your use of reason and free will. Second, such societies lead to the atrocities committed by states based on religion quite quickly.

I think those who want to use our government to foster their brand of religion truly don't understand freedom. They are on the road to authoritarian government and in fact, part of the reason for the 2nd Amend.
 
Re: Glenn E. Meyer What he said (well put).
Historically, one doesn't see official faith based states where the religion is active in governance (rather than being some slogan in passing - like In God We Trust - really contributing as much to the progress of Western Civilization. Religious based governance leads to the suppression of dissent and science.
Click to expand...
The Dark Ages.

From my readings about the Framers of the Constitution, I believe (because I am not arrogant enough to "know" what the they were thinking) that they intended to prevent the forming of a state religion and the understood the undue influence religion could have on government.

By Ms. Harris comments she is obviously pandering to her audience. But making a comment that: "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," is arrogant. The question one should ask of a zealous, religious, politico: Do they "vote" their religion, or their constituency?
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires - Susan B. Anthony
Click to expand...
 
The intentions of the founding fathers is clear---no 1 forced religion. Everybody can agree on that. However, the left has carried it too far IMO. We've seen the action of "In God We Trust" on money being attacked. Offended by a manger scene? Exactly what 1 religion does a manger scene portray? How about a cross at grave yards? A Christmas tree? While an overwhelming majority have no problem with these things, a certain minor, minor few don't want it---and get their way. If put to a vote it would be no contest, but Liberal judges have imposed their wants into the law.
 
Offended by a manger scene? Exactly what 1 religion does a manger scene portray?

A manger scene put up by the state is using government funds to promote the origin story of Christianity. That's very clear. Why should state funds be used to promote the origin story of that religion?

If the argument is that Christians are a majority - that is a frightening analysis. Again that is a socialism of religion. Nor is a solution to have state funds promote the origin stories of Islam or the Jewish Faith, the Hindus or anyone else.

I cannot fathom why folks who prattle about freedom then think that majority status gives their tribalism the right to be funded by the state. Put it up with your own funds.

Also, resorting to the cliche about liberal judges is getting so old. It's a shame that some judges defend our rights. OH, don't we want judges to overturn gun laws based on the Constitution? Is that judicial activism.

As Marko said once (and I apologize if I misrepresent him) to many in the gun world forget other basic tenets of liberty. One of them is not to have a state sanctioned or funding religion. Funding a manage is exactly that - whether or not manager believers are the majority.

When segregation was brought down, an overwhelming majority in some regions were offended by the court. Tough.
 
Sorry Glenn, a manger scene DOES NOT promote any 1 religion--name it. Besides that the manger scene portrays the birth of Jesus. Jesus, whether you believe he is the son of God or not---was indeed a man/philosopher. there is nothing wrong in celebrating his birthday. We have holidays for Martin Luther King etc...These symbols do not promote any 1 religion.
 
Please name the 1 religion it represents--very simple. The manger scene--as stated before---represents the birth of Jesus---son of God or philosopher---you decide.
 
That's an interesting construction of the what most folks think of the Birth of Jesus and Christmas. I don't think the majority agrees that Christmas a celebration of a secular philosopher.

The one religion is Christianity. If the state had a celebration of Passover and named it as a secular holiday celebrating the freeing of slaves, I wouldn't by that either.

Let's get real here. Martin Luther King is celebrated for his contribution to the practical aspects of America and its freedoms. Similarly, Veterans' Day, Presidents' Day, etc.

Having Christian relatives and taken them to Church on Christmas - the celebration and manger were clearly religious, IMHO.

"If you're not electing philosophers, then in essence you are going to legislate sin"
 
Last edited:
Do all people who celebrate Christmas practice religion? No. AS I said Jesus was no doubt born in the manger scene----whther you believe he is the son of God is up to you. His birth is a fact and at the least he is a philosopher---can't argue that point. Christianity covers many religions--not 1. So Jesus can't be celebrated--c'mon. As for the lame arguement of tax dollars---let's get real. How much do you think in tax dollars per individual it would cost for a manger scene per tax payer---less then 1c. So it now becomes tax payer cent. How many tax dollars go to things you don't want or need. This is simply a way for some very few to infringe on the majority. Are you truly offended by a manger scene? How about the cross? In God We Trust? Christmas tree? You didn't address those.
 
We've seen the action of "In God We Trust" on money being attacked.
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't belong there.

Exactly what 1 religion does a manger scene portray?
Click to expand...
Christianity. Public funds should never be spent on anything that caters to any one religion and since it's impossible to cater to all religions equally they should all recieve equal representation: none.

Sorry Glenn, a manger scene DOES NOT promote any 1 religion--name it. Besides that the manger scene portrays the birth of Jesus. Jesus, whether you believe he is the son of God or not---was indeed a man/philosopher. there is nothing wrong in celebrating his birthday. We have holidays for Martin Luther King etc...These symbols do not promote any 1 religion.
Click to expand...
The manger scene is a representation of the religious idea of the birth of a man who may or may not have existed. There are no hospital records for that event and thus the only place the manger scene comes from is a religious book.
 
If the state had a celebration of Passover and named it as a secular holiday celebrating the freeing of slaves, I wouldn't by that either.
Click to expand...
By the way, isn't Christmas still a federal holiday? Why is a purely Christian holiday recognized by a government that supposedly isn't allowed to respect the establishment of a religion?

Do all people who celebrate Christmas practice religion? No. AS I said Jesus was no doubt born in the manger scene----whther you believe he is the son of God is up to you. His birth is a fact and at the least he is a philosopher---can't argue that point. Christianity covers many religions--not 1. So Jesus can't be celebrated--c'mon. As for the lame arguement of tax dollars---let's get real. How much do you think in tax dollars per individual it would cost for a manger scene per tax payer---less then 1c. So it now becomes tax payer cent. How many tax dollars go to things you don't want or need. This is simply a way for some very few to infringe on the majority. Are you truly offended by a manger scene? How about the cross? In God We Trust? Christmas tree? You didn't address those.
Click to expand...

Dude, Christianity covers one religion: Christianity. There are numerous denominations but Catholics, Baptists, Protestants and Evangelicals are all classified as Christians.

I'm not offended by any of these things but that doesn't mean I should have to pay for it, regardless of how much it costs. If you're happy with one cent going to build a shrine to Mohammad on government property then maybe your argument will hold water. Are you?

"In god we trust" doesn't belong on our money, either. I'm not offended by it and honestly I don't care if people are offended by it. The bottom line is that the government has no business telling the world and its' citizens that we all trust in the same diety.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top