Liberals attack free exercise of Religion

[BytheRules]

McClatchy-Tribune Business News - Editorial - Religion in School

January 17, 2007

Editorial - McClatchy-Tribune Business News

Everyone celebrated Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday Monday, recognizing the religious leader who led a faith-based campaign against government racial discrimination. Yet few noticed that Tuesday was Religious Freedom Day, created to celebrate the constitutional right, which 300 million of us still enjoy, just as King did.

In his proclamation to note Tuesday's observance, President George W. Bush called on all Americans to, "commemorate this day with appropriate events and activities in their schools, place of worship, neighborhoods and homes."

In their schools? Yes. As the Supreme Court noted in 1969, public school students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Despite what you might have heard about "separation of church and state," the expression of religious beliefs remains a constitutionally protected right, even in public schools. Many school officials -- and more than a few judges and members of organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union -- need an education on this point.

In Ohio, there's a case at Crestview schools, where a parent was unhappy that school officials put notices of religious groups' activities in student mailboxes -- just the same as the district handled notices of things like Little League baseball. The ACLU involved itself. The parent and the civil liberties organization received a favorable ruling in U.S. District Court in Toledo before the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in with common sense and reversed the ruling.

So over in Van Wert County you had school officials who understood what they were able to allow -- in fact, had to allow -- and some busybodies trying to block religion from public display. Unfortunately, the problems begin much earlier elsewhere.

Just last month, for example, school officials told an Illinois high-school senior that the statement she wanted in the yearbook was too religious and couldn't be submitted. About the same time, another high-school senior in Washington state wanted to write a religious children's book for a project, but was denied because the school's policy requires projects be sectarian, not religious.

In both cases, officials reversed their position after attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice based in Washington, D.C., sent letters to the schools explaining the U.S. Constitution guarantees students religious freedom and freedom of speech. These are unalienable, God-given rights, not privileges men permit or benefits the state bestows. ACLJ's mission is to "educate, promulgate, conciliate, and where necessary, litigate, to ensure that those rights are protected." The organization keeps very busy.

If anyone is unclear on the issue, the U.S. Department of Education sums these rights up this way:

-- Students can pray, read their Bible or other religious books and talk about their faith at school during school hours.

-- Students can organize prayer groups and religious clubs and announce their meetings. (We again refer you to the Crestview schools case.)

-- Students can express their faith in their class work and homework.

-- Teachers can organize prayer groups and Bible studies.

-- Students may be able to go off campus to have a Bible study during school hours.

-- Students can express their faith at a school event, including graduation ceremonies.

Now probably would be a good time for public school teachers, principals and other officials to mention these rights to their students. If nothing else, they're worth knowing for parents who want their children to express their religious beliefs, even at school.

ACLJ • American Center for Law & Justice (http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=2519)

[curefiend]

I would like you to cite some instances where a student was denied any of those rights. I have noticed a certain ability amongst a group of people to smudge and distort reality without much shame. Its kind of frightening.

[ChairmanMeow]

Is you’re problem here with this issue or just liberals?

[Coyote]

I've never heard of religious freedom day. It seems to me it is better to learn about the history of religious freedom - not promote religious activities of different religious groups in schools.

The funny thing is...these very same Christians who hate the ACLU for some how restricting their free exercise of religion completely ignore the many cases ACLU fought and won on their behalf.

[palerider]

I would like you to cite some instances where a student was denied any of those rights. I have noticed a certain ability amongst a group of people to smudge and distort reality without much shame. Its kind of frightening.

Here are some off the top of my head. If you want more, I can certainly provide them.


Raymond Raines, 4th grader, at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis bowed his head and silently blessed his food in the cafeteria. His teacher pulled him away from the table and took him to the office where the principal told him that it was against the rules to pray in school (even silently). He continued to bless his food and was removed from the cafeteria two more times and disiplined. The school adminstration then segregated him from his classmates and subjected him to ridicule specifically for his belief in God and eventually he was given a week long detention for silently blessing his food.


At Lucas Middle School, a teacher took two bibles away from a pair of sisters, and informed the sisters in the middle of a crowded hallway that "this is garbage" and tossed the bibles in the trash. The teacher then called the girl's mother and threatened to call child protective services.


In May, 1995 US District judge Samuel B. Kent decreed that any student who said the word Jesus would be arrested and issued the following statement:

"And make no mistake, this court is going to have a United States marshall in attendance at the graduation . If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to 6 months incarceration in the Galvaston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks that I am kidding, is going to wish that he or she and died as a child when this court gets through with them."


Then there was Kayla Broadus, a kindergartener in Sarasota Springs, NY who was holding hands with a couple of her friends at snack time and issued the "profanity" "God is great, God is good, thank you God for my food" and was scolded by her teacher. The teacher then reported the "infraction" to the school lawyer Gregg T. Johnson who immediately determined that little Kayla had violated the imaginary separation of church and state. The school board issued a press release stating that Kayla was prohibited from praying aloud in school.

By the way, you are absolutely right. Liberals certainly do smudge and distort reality without shame. Moral relativism. You know how it is.

[Coyote]

By the way, you are absolutely right. Liberals certainly do smudge and distort reality without shame. Moral relativism. You know how it is.

Speaking of smudging and distorting reality....:rolleyes:

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

[invest07]

palerider

It is true that liberals distort the truth. This is a necessary condition of liberalism. Remember that liberals don't beleive in moral absolutes. Everything is relative.

Liberals believe that morality is defined by humans and not by God or any higher authority. Since every human has a different idea of what is "fair" or what is "right and wrong" there can be no broad concensus among liberals as to what is right and wrong.

Liberals tend to ignore 6,000 years of recorded human history in favor of what is trendy at the moment. (Something to do with 15 minutes of fame). This is the reason liberals love Political Correctness and multi-culturalism.

Liberals tend to look at politics as the solution to all human problems. (If only the perfect system of government could be enacted it would be nirvana).

Liberals like to pick and choose passages from the Bible to accept and reject.
They often cite "Swords to plowshares" and "Do unto others". Then they spit on Christians calling them bigots and homopohobes.

Liberalism begins as an emotional reaction to inputs. Some people react emotionally to inputs and some people react throughtfully. Those that react emotionally tend to become liberals. Those that think things through tend to become conservatives.

A conservative belief system is the end result of rational thought and life experience. Liberalism is the product of knee jerk emotionalism.

Advertisers understand the power of emotions. Ford doesn't even try to sell a Mustang as trasnportation. It is a fun, hip, fast, cool car. You sell the sizzle and not the steak.

Emotions are far easier to manipulate than rational thought and Democrat politicians fully understand their market. It is not necessary to actually solve any problems, only necessary to demonstrate that you care. Symbols are more important to liberals than substance although they will deny this.

Since taking control of Congress, what have they done? Raised the minimum wage is all. The effective minimum wage in my area is $7.00/hour and has always been around $2.00/hour more than the government mandated minimum wage. So what has actually been accomplished by raising the mandated minium wage? Diddly squat. Nada. Zero. Zilch. The market miniumum wage is and alwasy has been greater than the mandated minimum wage and no one is going to get a raise as a result of increasing the mandated minimum wage. So all the hoopla over increasing the minimum wage is symbolic and has no substance.

I can't put my brain on hold so I guess I will never make a good liberal.

[palerider]

Speaking of smudging and distorting reality....:rolleyes:

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

The ACLU didn't step up for any of the people I referenced above and I have an extensive list of people who have been persecuted in this country for their religious beliefs, none of which the ACLU stepped up to help. The ACLU may protect a "token" Christian occasionally, but they have been responsible for more erosion of our freedom of religion than they will ever rebuild.

[Coyote]

The ACLU didn't step up for any of the people I referenced above and I have an extensive list of people who have been persecuted in this country for their religious beliefs, none of which the ACLU stepped up to help. The ACLU may protect a "token" Christian occasionally, but they have been responsible for more erosion of our freedom of religion than they will ever rebuild.

I hardly consider that lengthy list to represent a "token" Christian occassionally.

Are they required to take every single case? Does the NRA take every single fire arms court case?

I'll reiterate: ...Speaking of smudging and distorting reality....

[Coyote]

palerider

It is true that liberals distort the truth. This is a necessary condition of liberalism. Remember that liberals don't beleive in moral absolutes. Everything is relative.

Liberals believe that morality is defined by humans and not by God or any higher authority. Since every human has a different idea of what is "fair" or what is "right and wrong" there can be no broad concensus among liberals as to what is right and wrong.

Liberals tend to ignore 6,000 years of recorded human history in favor of what is trendy at the moment. (Something to do with 15 minutes of fame). This is the reason liberals love Political Correctness and multi-culturalism.

Liberals tend to look at politics as the solution to all human problems. (If only the perfect system of government could be enacted it would be nirvana).

Liberals like to pick and choose passages from the Bible to accept and reject.
They often cite "Swords to plowshares" and "Do unto others". Then they spit on Christians calling them bigots and homopohobes.

Liberalism begins as an emotional reaction to inputs. Some people react emotionally to inputs and some people react throughtfully. Those that react emotionally tend to become liberals. Those that think things through tend to become conservatives.

A conservative belief system is the end result of rational thought and life experience. Liberalism is the product of knee jerk emotionalism.

Advertisers understand the power of emotions. Ford doesn't even try to sell a Mustang as trasnportation. It is a fun, hip, fast, cool car. You sell the sizzle and not the steak.

Emotions are far easier to manipulate than rational thought and Democrat politicians fully understand their market. It is not necessary to actually solve any problems, only necessary to demonstrate that you care. Symbols are more important to liberals than substance although they will deny this.

Since taking control of Congress, what have they done? Raised the minimum wage is all. The effective minimum wage in my area is $7.00/hour and has always been around $2.00/hour more than the government mandated minimum wage. So what has actually been accomplished by raising the mandated minium wage? Diddly squat. Nada. Zero. Zilch. The market miniumum wage is and alwasy has been greater than the mandated minimum wage and no one is going to get a raise as a result of increasing the mandated minimum wage. So all the hoopla over increasing the minimum wage is symbolic and has no substance.

I can't put my brain on hold so I guess I will never make a good liberal.


Maybe you ought to step away from political talking points and consider a more objective look at liberals and conservatives.

Consider the following: http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1363

or

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1071

a lengthy read but worth it to go through even if the beginning pisses you off.

[palerider]

I hardly consider that lengthy list to represent a "token" Christian occassionally.

Consider the number of filings by the ACLU since it began. That "lengthy" list hardly represents even a "token" number of cases defending the right to religious freedom.

[Coyote]

Consider the number of filings by the ACLU since it began. That "lengthy" list hardly represents even a "token" number of cases defending the right to religious freedom.


That is only a partial list, agreed. Can you document it anywhere that this is a "token"? Keep in mind - religion is not the only right that the ACLU defends.

[palerider]

That is only a partial list, agreed. Can you document it anywhere that this is a "token"? Keep in mind - religion is not the only right that the ACLU defends.

The person who had the web site clearly had a mission to demonstrate that the aclu wasn't anti Christian. If there were more cases, you can bet that they would have been listed.

[vyo476]

It is true that liberals distort the truth. This is a necessary condition of liberalism.

All politicians distort the truth. There are probably more cases of distortion coming from our government than honesty coming from our government in this country's history.

This does not make it okay for any one group to continue with the distortion; just don't point the finger solely at the liberals.

Remember that liberals don't beleive in moral absolutes. Everything is relative.

Liberals believe that morality is defined by humans and not by God or any higher authority. Since every human has a different idea of what is "fair" or what is "right and wrong" there can be no broad concensus among liberals as to what is right and wrong.

Your damn right we don't believe in moral absolutes. If everyone could agree on whose "higher authority" was ultimately correct, then sure, we'd go in for a few moral absolutes. Who is to say that God, and not Allah, or Yahweh, or any number of Hindu or Greek gods is in charge of the afterlife? Whose to say that God created Man, and not Prometheus? Are you to make that judgment call for all of us? Notice the word judgment - I thought Christians believed that particular right laid only with the big guy upstairs.

Liberals tend to ignore 6,000 years of recorded human history in favor of what is trendy at the moment. (Something to do with 15 minutes of fame). This is the reason liberals love Political Correctness and multi-culturalism.

We do not ignore history. If you take a good look at it, history has been full of bloodshed, inequality, hatred, and general misery. We'd like to break that cycle.

Liberals tend to look at politics as the solution to all human problems. (If only the perfect system of government could be enacted it would be nirvana).

As opposed to conservatives, who prefer to ignore or rail against those problems that don't concern them.

Liberals like to pick and choose passages from the Bible to accept and reject.

Take a good, long look down the list of threads and ask yourself how many are devoted to picking and choosing passages from the Qu'ran to accept and reject as opposed to how many are about doing so with the Bible. Then ask yourself what the political ideology of the people starting those threads is.

They often cite "Swords to plowshares" and "Do unto others". Then they spit on Christians calling them bigots and homopohobes.

Personally, I have nothing against Christians. I will not defend any of my colleagues who unilaterally attack Christianity because that isn't fair.

Liberalism begins as an emotional reaction to inputs. Some people react emotionally to inputs and some people react throughtfully. Those that react emotionally tend to become liberals. Those that think things through tend to become conservatives.

So, liberals = human beings and conservatives = machines?

I think Robin Williams said it best when he said the term "compassionate conservative" brought to mind a Volvo with a gun rack.

A conservative belief system is the end result of rational thought and life experience. Liberalism is the product of knee jerk emotionalism. \

Blind conservatism is the result of selfishness, coldness, and a general lack of caring for one's fellow man. Liberalism that doesn't go totally overboard is about doing what's possible to help one's fellow man.

We can generalize all day if you'd like, or you can open your eyes, use some of that "life experience" of yours, and realize that we liberals aren't evil - even by your "absolute" definition.

Advertisers understand the power of emotions. Ford doesn't even try to sell a Mustang as trasnportation. It is a fun, hip, fast, cool car. You sell the sizzle and not the steak.

Emotions are far easier to manipulate than rational thought and Democrat politicians fully understand their market. It is not necessary to actually solve any problems, only necessary to demonstrate that you care. Symbols are more important to liberals than substance although they will deny this.

So is that why Bill Clinton managed to balance the budget when GW barely knows which way to hold a dollar bill to read it?

Since taking control of Congress, what have they done? Raised the minimum wage is all. The effective minimum wage in my area is $7.00/hour and has always been around $2.00/hour more than the government mandated minimum wage. So what has actually been accomplished by raising the mandated minium wage? Diddly squat. Nada. Zero. Zilch. The market miniumum wage is and alwasy has been greater than the mandated minimum wage and no one is going to get a raise as a result of increasing the mandated minimum wage. So all the hoopla over increasing the minimum wage is symbolic and has no substance.


Do you make minimum wage? Do you live anywhere near a large group of people who make minimum wage? There are quite a few people out there who can eat more than once every two days now because their wages were increased. All this talk about "market minimum wage" is all well and good for white teenagers working part time jobs in supermarkets and fast food restaurants but out in the real world, where people have to try and live off of such crappy wages, a raise in the minimum has and will continue to make a difference.

I can't put my brain on hold so I guess I will never make a good liberal.


Or you'll just never realize that your brain is permanently on hold, which will make you a good conservative.

[Coyote]

The person who had the web site clearly had a mission to demonstrate that the aclu wasn't anti Christian. If there were more cases, you can bet that they would have been listed.

I thought YOU said source doesn't matter? Those are just a portion of cases - more are listed on ACLU's site, and on the individual sites of their affiliates. In addition - the ACLU is not soley concerned with the right of religious freedom but with other civil rights as well.


Here's an article from Christianity Today:



The ACLU Is Not Evil
And neither are many people with whom we disagree.
Stephen L. Carter | posted 5/01/2006 12:00AM

I would like to say a word in defense of the American Civil Liberties Union. Christians—including me, both in the pages of CT and elsewhere—often criticize the ACLU for advocating separation of church and state in ways that seem less grounded in the Constitution and in history than in an ideological desire for a religion-free public arena. On the other hand, I shudder when fellow Christians blithely dismiss the organization as fundamentally biased against them. Some call it the Anti-Christian Liberals Union or the Anti-Christian Litigation Unit. There are other, less friendly acronyms as well. I think the ACLU is wrong to oppose religious expression in the public square, but being wrong is not the same as being evil.
• Related articles and links

More to the point, the ACLU is often right about the First Amendment's free exercise clause, taking on fights that others refuse. It might surprise some critics that the ACLU defends the free speech and free exercise rights of, well, Christians.

For example, in 2001, the group interceded with a school district in Michigan that had deleted a high school senior's yearbook entry because she included a Bible verse. In 2002, the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of a pastor associated with Operation Rescue who was prevented from participating in a parade because his pro-life poster showed a photograph of an aborted baby. And last September, the organization joined a lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey second-grader who was not allowed to sing "Awesome God" in a school talent show. (All of these examples are easily accessible on several Web pages now devoted to defending the ACLU 's record on Christianity.)

Yet I must confess that, although I am pleased to balance the record, defending the ACLU is not my primary purpose here. I am more concerned about a habit of mind that seems to be growing among my fellow Christians, both political liberals and conservatives. That is, we seem to mimic the secular world's conflation of disagreement with wickedness, as if not sharing my worldview places my critic outside the realm of rational discourse.

I spend most of my driving time nowadays listening to Christian radio. Most of what I hear is edifying and uplifting. But now and then a genuine clunker comes along, often in the form of a politically active Christian who derides anyone who disagrees with his version of biblical wisdom. One of the nastiest words, at least for many radio preachers, seems to be liberal.

Now, I have often been described as a liberal myself—although rarely by liberals. Once, after I gave a talk at a small Christian college in the Bible Belt, a concerned student carrying one of my books approached me. He had enjoyed the lecture, he assured me, but something in my book troubled him. He flipped to a page on which I had complimented something President Bill Clinton had said. The student then turned to me, the look of worry still on his face, and told me I must have written this because I was, really, a liberal. This student believed it was impossible for the good guys—the way he said liberal told me that liberals were not among them—to say anything positive about President Clinton.

The host of a popular syndicated Christian radio program once told me that he had received death threats—not just a few, but a lot—during the Clinton administration. His sin? Reminding listeners of their obligation to pray for those God had placed in positions of authority, whether or not they happened to agree with their policies.

Yes, we live in a polarized time. The screechy hatefulness emanating from many on the secular Left during the Bush administration has sullied our public discourse. Many Christians feel under assault by the uncompromising secularism of the culture. This includes the queries, on the heels of every bit of bad news, about how one can believe in a God who would allow certain things (this hurricane, this genocide, this war, this tsunami).

As an antidote to these uninformed arguments, I recommend David Bentley Hart's startlingly exquisite 2005 book, The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? As an antidote to the screechy hatefulness, I recommend Christian love. While our fallen nature makes all of us, whether on the Left or the Right, prone to hating our enemies, we Christians know that Christ calls us to a higher standard.

Want a practical example? The next time a fellow Christian disparages the ACLU , try answering with something like this: "Sure, they're on the wrong side sometimes, but I thank God for the times when they're right."

[Dr.Who]

From CT
[QUOTE]I would like to say a word in defense of the American Civil Liberties Union. Christians—including me, both in the pages of CT and elsewhere—often criticize the ACLU for advocating separation of church and state in ways that seem less grounded in the Constitution and in history than in an ideological desire for a religion-free public arena.



From the link Coyote posted:



The ACLU fights just as hard for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights against GOVERNMENT endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion. Despite this fact, many people spread misinformation about the ACLU around the internet, innocently and maliciously, falsely claiming the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian.


From the site linked below:

The ACLU says they are the guardian of liberty who works to defend and preserve individual rights. However, they are less fighting for something than fighting against something. They fight against intelligent design and abstinence education not because they infringe on rights, but because they are part of an order they believe needs to be abolished.

Being anti-Christian implies that they intend to specifically attack Christianity as an end of itself. As Roger Baldwin (a co-founder of the ACLU) said of the goals of the ACLU:

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted, and I traveled the United Front road to get it.

The ACLU attacks the traditional foundation of the family in society. This is why they fight against parental notification of abortions, school choice, and the parent's role in educating their children. In fact, they attack traditional forms of authority beyond that of the state. In communist nations, the state is the highest authority and all needs and actions must be made in connection with what is best for the state. That is why you can talk about purges and gulags and communists don't flinch. Communism requires them.

Their attacks on Christianity aren't designed to eradicate Christianity, per se. They are designed to establish a social order (or more appropriately destroy the existing order) and customs that advance their ideas and Christianity isn't a part of it. In short, they aren't anti-Christian in intent, they are anti-Christian in effect.

http://jcb.pentex-net.com/archives/2005/09/is_the_aclu_ant.html

Now, that being said... the question I still have is this: Does the ACLU really draw the line at individual rights versus government endorsement of religion or if we examined them closely might we find that the line is somewhat blurry with some doubt about their actually being defenders of individual christian liberty?

“...the
ACLU is really on a vendetta of trying to remove every
religious reference from any city seal, from our mottos.”
Sekulow says this is a campaign specifically targeted against
Christian symbols. He notes that in California, students are
required to read the Koran in school and the ACLU has
no problem with this. In New York City, public schools
were forced to remove all Christian symbols of Christ-
mas but not Jewish Menorahs or the Islamic Star and
Crescent for Ramadan—and the ACLU didn’t object. Se-
kulow predicts that the ACLU will eventually sue cities
like “Corpus Christi” to change their names because it
means “Body of Christ.”

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:c0-zErgmnsgJ:www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/ACLU.pdf+aclu+anti-christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us


If the ACLU were consistent to oppose all religions in its separation of church and state quest it would be one thing, but in all too many cases it is Christianity that is targeted while other religions get a pass. The cases of double standards are numerous. A few blatant examples are how the ACLU fought to revoke the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church while fighting for a tax exemption for Wiccans and how they fight against any Christianity being exposed to school children yet are found absent when Islamic indoctrination is going on. In fact, they were involved in creating the rules to allow such indoctrination to take place.

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2006/10/aclu-anti-christian-liberals-union.html

But on its national Web page, the ACLU states:

"It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment ..

Uh, no it's not. The first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment is freedom of religion. That the ACLU has now seen fit to edit the Bill of Rights to exclude it says a lot about that once-august organization.

http://mindflame.blogspot.com/2005/01/is-aclu-anti-christian.html

ACLU lawyers specifically seek legal opportunities designed to upend that which we cherish and which makes us who we are: our traditions, habits, sexual discipline and our belief in parental rights and the integrity of the nuclear family. Repeatedly, they argue for the broadest allowance when it comes to supporting the "rights" of those wishing to challenge and undermine historic American norms but insist on the stingiest, most limiting parameters for those with traditional values.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21597

Lastly, as an example of an ACLU exception. The ACLU fights against the Boy Scouts which is a private Christian group. Why? Because the Boy Scouts have as a condition of membership an oath to God. Remember, the Boy Scouts are an individual corporation and not a government entity.

[drippinhun]

Here are some off the top of my head. If you want more, I can certainly provide them.


Raymond Raines, 4th grader, at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis bowed his head and silently blessed his food in the cafeteria. His teacher pulled him away from the table and took him to the office where the principal told him that it was against the rules to pray in school (even silently). He continued to bless his food and was removed from the cafeteria two more times and disiplined. The school adminstration then segregated him from his classmates and subjected him to ridicule specifically for his belief in God and eventually he was given a week long detention for silently blessing his food.


At Lucas Middle School, a teacher took two bibles away from a pair of sisters, and informed the sisters in the middle of a crowded hallway that "this is garbage" and tossed the bibles in the trash. The teacher then called the girl's mother and threatened to call child protective services.


In May, 1995 US District judge Samuel B. Kent decreed that any student who said the word Jesus would be arrested and issued the following statement:

"And make no mistake, this court is going to have a United States marshall in attendance at the graduation . If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to 6 months incarceration in the Galvaston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks that I am kidding, is going to wish that he or she and died as a child when this court gets through with them."


Then there was Kayla Broadus, a kindergartener in Sarasota Springs, NY who was holding hands with a couple of her friends at snack time and issued the "profanity" "God is great, God is good, thank you God for my food" and was scolded by her teacher. The teacher then reported the "infraction" to the school lawyer Gregg T. Johnson who immediately determined that little Kayla had violated the imaginary separation of church and state. The school board issued a press release stating that Kayla was prohibited from praying aloud in school.

By the way, you are absolutely right. Liberals certainly do smudge and distort reality without shame. Moral relativism. You know how it is.

Four examples out of tens of thousands of schools throughout the nation. I'm convinced. This is akin to wasting hundreds of thousands of Congressional operating costs in time to debate flag burning admendments when the occurence level of said burnings may be one every five years.

[ArmChair General]

Here are some off the top of my head. If you want more, I can certainly provide them.


Raymond Raines, 4th grader, at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis bowed his head and silently blessed his food in the cafeteria. His teacher pulled him away from the table and took him to the office where the principal told him that it was against the rules to pray in school (even silently). He continued to bless his food and was removed from the cafeteria two more times and disiplined. The school adminstration then segregated him from his classmates and subjected him to ridicule specifically for his belief in God and eventually he was given a week long detention for silently blessing his food.


At Lucas Middle School, a teacher took two bibles away from a pair of sisters, and informed the sisters in the middle of a crowded hallway that "this is garbage" and tossed the bibles in the trash. The teacher then called the girl's mother and threatened to call child protective services.


In May, 1995 US District judge Samuel B. Kent decreed that any student who said the word Jesus would be arrested and issued the following statement:

"And make no mistake, this court is going to have a United States marshall in attendance at the graduation . If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to 6 months incarceration in the Galvaston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks that I am kidding, is going to wish that he or she and died as a child when this court gets through with them."


Then there was Kayla Broadus, a kindergartener in Sarasota Springs, NY who was holding hands with a couple of her friends at snack time and issued the "profanity" "God is great, God is good, thank you God for my food" and was scolded by her teacher. The teacher then reported the "infraction" to the school lawyer Gregg T. Johnson who immediately determined that little Kayla had violated the imaginary separation of church and state. The school board issued a press release stating that Kayla was prohibited from praying aloud in school.

By the way, you are absolutely right. Liberals certainly do smudge and distort reality without shame. Moral relativism. You know how it is.

Those sound like points from a chain e-mail letter. Have any actual sources for those?

[palerider]

Those sound like points from a chain e-mail letter. Have any actual sources for those?


Use that giant brain of yours general. I gave you names and places, are you telling me that with that information, you are unable to find the information on your own?

[Cookie Parker]

n his proclamation to note Tuesday's observance, President George W. Bush called on all Americans to, "commemorate this day with appropriate events and activities in their schools, place of worship, neighborhoods and homes."

In their schools? Yes. As the Supreme Court noted in 1969, public school students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Despite what you might have heard about "separation of church and state," the expression of religious beliefs remains a constitutionally protected right, even in public schools. Many school officials -- and more than a few judges and members of organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union -- need an education on this point.

Not in places of public tax dollars..that infringes upon the rights of those of other religions or those who consider religion bunk.

You are free to express your religious ideas in all places NOT publically supported...and those who don't want to hear it are free to either not go, or give you an earful of why religion's attempt to destroy this nation will not work..

[PoliticalGrrrl]

Not in places of public tax dollars..that infringes upon the rights of those of other religions or those who consider religion bunk.

You are free to express your religious ideas in all places NOT publically supported...and those who don't want to hear it are free to either not go, or give you an earful of why religion's attempt to destroy this nation will not work..

Does that include U.S. currency? When someone is asked to take the stand in federal court, perhaps they should strike "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.. so help you God?" Good knight it's getting ridiculous any more.

I find it just.. ugh.. that some people want to tell other people how they should conduct their lives and that includes practicing their religious/spiritual beliefs.

I'm agnostic and could really give a piss whether or not someone says a silent prayer at lunch. Nor do I care if some of the children at school leave out the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't believe anyone (and that includes Christians) should be forced to say or not say.. pray or NOT pray.

[palerider]

Not in places of public tax dollars..that infringes upon the rights of those of other religions or those who consider religion bunk.

You are free to express your religious ideas in all places NOT publically supported...and those who don't want to hear it are free to either not go, or give you an earful of why religion's attempt to destroy this nation will not work..

Read the first amendment, it promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion and as such, if your religion suggests that you shoud speak your mind in places supported by public dollars, then the constitution promises to protect your right to do so.

[Coyote]

Read the first amendment, it promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion and as such, if your religion suggests that you shoud speak your mind in places supported by public dollars, then the constitution promises to protect your right to do so.

Although there are always extremists and exceptions - for the vast majority - you can speak your mind in places supported by public dollars. The constitution and the ACLU (even though you may despise them) protect that right.


If "Athiesm" is considered a religion - then what is the difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion?

[palerider]

If "Athiesm" is considered a religion - then what is the difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion?

What does the freedom of or from religion have to do with athiesm?

[Popeye]

Read the first amendment, it promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion

I would suggest that the First Amendment implies both. There is the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion. Sounds like, "freedom from religion" to me.

[palerider]

I would suggest that the First Amendment implies both. There is the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion. Sounds like, "freedom from religion" to me.

You clearly don't know what the establishment clause is all about. The establishment clause was written into the Constitution to promise states that had established religions that the federal government would not interfere with state religions. At least 6 states had established religions at the time the Constitution was signed and at least one still had a state religion 50 years later and the fed never interfered.

And the clause doesn't state that the government will not establish religion, it states that congress shall make no law with respect to AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. That is, the congress will make no law that might interfere with an established church, ie a state church.

So many of your positions are based on false information, or misunderstood information and the interesting thing is that even after you are exposed to the truth, you still hold onto the positions that are based on untruth.

[Popeye]

You clearly don't know what the establishment clause is all about. The establishment clause was written into the Constitution to promise states that had established religions that the federal government would not interfere with state religions. At least 6 states had established religions at the time the Constitution was signed and at least one still had a state religion 50 years later and the fed never interfered.

And the clause doesn't state that the government will not establish religion, it states that congress shall make no law with respect to AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. That is, the congress will make no law that might interfere with an established church, ie a state church.

Maybe I'm missing something, let me quote from Wikipedia, "The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, and 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose". Now, does that or does it not, say that the establishment clause has been interpreted to prohibit the establishment of a national religion. That interpretation, is what I am referring to.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause

[palerider]

Maybe I'm missing something, let me quote from Wikipedia, "The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, and 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose". Now, does that or does it not, say that the establishment clause has been interpreted to prohibit the establishment of a national religion. That interpretation, is what I am referring to.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause

Of course you are missing something. It just goes to show what happens to you when you don't take the time to learn things for yourself. You are stuck with information that you don't know is accurate or not. In this case (as is usually the case with you) you have bad information.

Permit me to educate you on the establishment clause if I may.

I think that in order to grasp what the founders were saying when they wrote the clause, you must first examine, and be familiar with the stages it went through before it was finally accepted. Clearly you haven't done this. If I may start at the beginning.

James Madison penned the first draft of the first amendment in 1789 and it read as follows¦

”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on the account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience in any manner or on any pretext be infringed. “

A subcommittee in the house promptly struck the word national from the original draft. After that, several revisions were debated on but none contained the word national. After lengthy debate, the house approved this wording¦

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

The senate took up debate on September 3 and the debates were conducted in secrecy so there is no record of their entire contents, but the Senate Journal does list 3 motions and votes. The record states that the motions were voted on and defeated and all three motions restricted the ban in the draft amendment to establishments preferring one sect above another. The first motion would have made the establishment clause read as follows¦

"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others."

This motion failed and then a motion was made to kill the amendment which also failed then another motion was made to word the amendment as follows¦

”Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.”

This motion failed as well. A further motion was made to word the amendment as follows¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.”

This motion also failed and as a result, the senate adopted the language that the house had suggested¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing religion.”

Six days later, the Senate took up the clause again. This time they changed the House amendment to read¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

When the rewording was returned to the House, it was rejected and they suggested a joint conference. The Senate refused to back down on its wording, but did agree to the conference. The committee consisted of Madison as chairman of the House conferees, joined by Sherman and Vining, and Ellsworth as chairman of the Senate conferees, joined by Paterson and Carroll. Four of the six had been members of the Constitutional Convention.

The members of the House delegation simply refused to accept the Senate’s wording of the amendment. They said that they would not be satisfied with a simple ban on the preference of one sect or religion over all others. After much debate, the delegation from the Senate gave in and the amendment was drafted to read as we know it today¦

”Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Ok, so much for the history lesson. In considering the wording of this amendment in relation to the wording of the rest of the amendments a glaring inconsistency is evident. Look at all of the rights offered for incorporation in the Bill of Rights. Now ask yourself a couple of questions that you have probably never asked yourself with regard to those rights¦

1. What is the right in question?
2. Who does the right apply to?

When you apply these questions to the rest of the rights, the answers are obvious. Take, for example, freedom of speech. The answers are , the right to speak freely without fear of reprisal from the government and the right applies to everyone. But the establishment clause presents a problem when you try to apply the same questions why do you suppose that is?

The clause doesn’t seem to be so much right, with regard to individuals as it is a prohibition. There simply is nothing personal about this right...so why include it in the bill of rights unless it indeed is a right?

This clause is either the same, or different from the free exercise of religion. If it is the same then how does it enhance an individual’s religious freedom? If it is different, however, then what is it, because it isn’t a right to religious liberty.

Since it is in the bill of rights it must be a right, but obviously not an individual right by any stretch of the imagination, then whose right is it? The answer that seems most obvious is that it is protecting the rights of the states.

It is well documented that the states had religious establishments that were in effect for decades after the Bill of Rights was adopted and they were ended not by any federal mandate, but because of choices made by the individual states.

If one reads the establishment clause in the historical context of new law in a new country it becomes quite clear that the establishment clause was worded to protect the religious establishments of the individual states from any interference by the federal government. What other religious establishments existed in this country in 1791? The votes of the states that had established religions were needed in order to get the constitution ratified. It was necessary to assure the representatives of those states that the federal government would not interfere with thier state church business. There is a reason that they said "an establishment of religion". In the language of the day that statement means "a church" meaning that the congress could not make a law that interfered with a church.

In this light, it seems that the founders quite possibly were attempting to protect both the individual's right to religious freedom, and the state's rights to have their establishments of religion without the burden of federal interference.

If you want to debate this subject, you are going to need to research way beyond wikipedia and take the time to actually learn the subject in depth. It is my sincere hope that you do, because if you actually go after the facts, and study in the context of the new US, you won't be able to help but agree with me.

[Popeye]

Permit me to educate you on the establishment clause if I may.

I think that in order to grasp what the founders were saying when they wrote the clause, you must first examine, and be familiar with the stages it went through before it was finally accepted. Clearly you haven't done this. If I may start at the beginning.

James Madison penned the first draft of the first amendment in 1789 and it read as follows¦

”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on the account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience in any manner or on any pretext be infringed. “

A subcommittee in the house promptly struck the word national from the original draft. After that, several revisions were debated on but none contained the word national. After lengthy debate, the house approved this wording¦

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

The senate took up debate on September 3 and the debates were conducted in secrecy so there is no record of their entire contents, but the Senate Journal does list 3 motions and votes. The record states that the motions were voted on and defeated and all three motions restricted the ban in the draft amendment to establishments preferring one sect above another. The first motion would have made the establishment clause read as follows¦

"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others."

This motion failed and then a motion was made to kill the amendment which also failed then another motion was made to word the amendment as follows¦

”Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.”

This motion failed as well. A further motion was made to word the amendment as follows¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.”

This motion also failed and as a result, the senate adopted the language that the house had suggested¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing religion.”

Six days later, the Senate took up the clause again. This time they changed the House amendment to read¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

When the rewording was returned to the House, it was rejected and they suggested a joint conference. The Senate refused to back down on its wording, but did agree to the conference. The committee consisted of Madison as chairman of the House conferees, joined by Sherman and Vining, and Ellsworth as chairman of the Senate conferees, joined by Paterson and Carroll. Four of the six had been members of the Constitutional Convention.

The members of the House delegation simply refused to accept the Senate’s wording of the amendment. They said that they would not be satisfied with a simple ban on the preference of one sect or religion over all others. After much debate, the delegation from the Senate gave in and the amendment was drafted to read as we know it today¦

”Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Ok, so much for the history lesson. In considering the wording of this amendment in relation to the wording of the rest of the amendments a glaring inconsistency is evident. Look at all of the rights offered for incorporation in the Bill of Rights. Now ask yourself a couple of questions that you have probably never asked yourself with regard to those rights¦

1. What is the right in question?
2. Who does the right apply to?

When you apply these questions to the rest of the rights, the answers are obvious. Take, for example, freedom of speech. The answers are , the right to speak freely without fear of reprisal from the government and the right applies to everyone. But the establishment clause presents a problem when you try to apply the same questions why do you suppose that is?

The clause doesn’t seem to be so much right, with regard to individuals as it is a prohibition. There simply is nothing personal about this right...so why include it in the bill of rights unless it indeed is a right?

This clause is either the same, or different from the free exercise of religion. If it is the same then how does it enhance an individual’s religious freedom? If it is different, however, then what is it, because it isn’t a right to religious liberty.

Since it is in the bill of rights it must be a right, but obviously not an individual right by any stretch of the imagination, then whose right is it? The answer that seems most obvious is that it is protecting the rights of the states.

It is well documented that the states had religious establishments that were in effect for decades after the Bill of Rights was adopted and they were ended not by any federal mandate, but because of choices made by the individual states.

If one reads the establishment clause in the historical context of new law in a new country it becomes quite clear that the establishment clause was worded to protect the religious establishments of the individual states from any interference by the federal government. What other religious establishments existed in this country in 1791? The votes of the states that had established religions were needed in order to get the constitution ratified. It was necessary to assure the representatives of those states that the federal government would not interfere with thier state church business. There is a reason that they said "an establishment of religion". In the language of the day that statement means "a church" meaning that the congress could not make a law that interfered with a church.

In this light, it seems that the founders quite possibly were attempting to protect both the individual's right to religious freedom, and the state's rights to have their establishments of religion without the burden of federal interference.


Fine, in the context of the founders, maybe you are right. What I'm saying however, is that the interpretation of the establishment clause has been argued about for years. The following is a quote from the ACLU, I know what you must think of the organization, but my point is that the establishment clause is open to interpretation. Perhaps, it's not so cut and dried as you may think.


"The first half of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, it reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
"At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding."

[palerider]

Fine, in the context of the founders, maybe you are right. What I'm saying however, is that the interpretation of the establishment clause has been argued about for years. The following is a quote from the ACLU, I know what you must think of the organization, but my point is that the establishment clause is open to interpretation. Perhaps, it's not so cut and dried as you may think.


"The first half of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, it reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
"At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding."

I have no disagreement with the ACLU's statement if that is as far as it goes, it is accurate except that they leave out the fact that at least a half a dozen states had state financed and supported religions at the time of the signing and none of them were shut down as a result of the signing. The establishment clause was a promise to not interfere in those state religions as a federally funded and supported religion would, by definition, interfere with the established state churches.

Your argument was:

I would suggest that the First Amendment implies both. There is the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion. Sounds like, "freedom from religion" to me.

And that argument simply is not true. There is nothing in the constitution that suggests that you have any sort of freedom from religion. Any suggestion otherwise must, by definition, be based on a faulty interpretation of and lack of historical knowledge of the origins of the establishment clause. The words in the constitution mean what they mean and interpretations that deviate from the actual meaning are of no value to anyone.