So basically your opinion is that if something is thought or felt for long enough than it automatically shouldn't be challenged, questioned, or changed? Based on this, can I conclude you're also: 1. Anti-minority rights 2. Anti-women rights 3. Anti-micro biology 4. Anti-genetic research 5. Anti-progress

I definitely do not consider myself to be a practicing born again/evangelical/fundamental whatever Christian at this time. However, I am a firm believer in fair play. That being said, this matter makes me sick. If I had my way, I'd nuke the Muslim leaders in Pakistan, decimate the capital, and free the woman. It's blasphemy! Who cares! You can't even prove that your God exists! Unfortunately,...more

I definitely do not consider myself to be a practicing born again/evangelical/fundamental whatever Christian at this time. However, I am a firm believer in fair play. That being said, this matter makes me sick. If I had my way, I'd nuke the Muslim leaders in Pakistan, decimate the capital, and free the woman. It's blasphemy! Who cares! You can't even prove that your God exists! Unfortunately, I cannot do these things, so I wonder whether she can seek asylum in the U.S. and if her family has tried to do this yet.

On a side note, this is what happens when church and state are allowed to unite, which is why I'm for a non-mutually exclusive secular government. With church-based government, the dominant religious view is allowed to make silly, "their interpretation of what their faith requires" laws and than force them down everyone's throat, wasting time, money, and resources. The U.S. has anti-blasphemy laws still on the books in many states, but they aren't enforced anymore thankfully.

Yours as always,

LSPless

DP, See Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). There, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a student initiated policy of voting to allow a fellow student to "solemnize" the football game with a short prayer was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned even though the prayer was student-initiated, the audience would perceive it as school sponsored given the nature of the e...more

DP,

See Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).

There, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a student initiated policy of voting to allow a fellow student to "solemnize" the football game with a short prayer was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned even though the prayer was student-initiated, the audience would perceive it as school sponsored given the nature of the event and the way the message was being broadcast.less

And I accidently marked "agree" on your comment, when I meant to say disagree. So . . DISAGREE!

There's nothing inconsistent about views per say. The constitutional provisions at issue are to be applied based the uniqueness of each situation. Thus, courts must engage in balancing test. I tend to favor separation of church and state when combined with religious freedom, which means that in issues involving Christian schools, I believe they have a right to hire teachers that comport with th...more

There's nothing inconsistent about views per say. The constitutional provisions at issue are to be applied based the uniqueness of each situation. Thus, courts must engage in balancing test. I tend to favor separation of church and state when combined with religious freedom, which means that in issues involving Christian schools, I believe they have a right to hire teachers that comport with their values.

With respect to the last article I commented on (the California Prayer Breakfast), I stand by the last comment I made there a few days ago.less

Believer, Apology accepted. I started harassing you about your ID as well, so I'd be a hypocrite to stay mad at you! I hope you can accept my apology as well. I realize we don't agree on everything, but I always enjoy debating and discussing things with you, and all the other regulars on this site.

Ziondaddy, No, I'm totally cool with everything you mentioned. If the principle wants to invite coworkers to a privately held prayer breakfast he can do that either on or off school grounds. What he cannot do under current U.S. Supreme Court case law (and in my opinion rightfully so) is encourage the school system itself to hold a prayer breakfast (something I thought he was doing) for tea...more

Ziondaddy,

No, I'm totally cool with everything you mentioned. If the principle wants to invite coworkers to a privately held prayer breakfast he can do that either on or off school grounds.

What he cannot do under current U.S. Supreme Court case law (and in my opinion rightfully so) is encourage the school system itself to hold a prayer breakfast (something I thought he was doing) for teachers. If all the teachers however, want to attend an extracurricular, non-school affiliated prayer event, they have that right under the Free Exercise clause in the 1st Amendment, and I'd be the first to defend them if their rights were being infringed.less

DP, I completely agree that a private religious school should have a right to hire/fire a teacher based on religious compatibility due to the First Amendment Free Exercise. However, I don't agree with you on your opinion that the establishment clause is automatically violated if the governments intervenes in a religious institution. Indeed, if there's a neutral law that applies across the...more

DP,

I completely agree that a private religious school should have a right to hire/fire a teacher based on religious compatibility due to the First Amendment Free Exercise.

However, I don't agree with you on your opinion that the establishment clause is automatically violated if the governments intervenes in a religious institution. Indeed, if there's a neutral law that applies across the board to everyone (e.g. laws banning drug use, murder, anti-discrimination laws for home sales, etc.), that law can be equally applied to religious groups as well. Indeed, not applying the law evenly would be granting exceptions for religious people, thereby in effect "respecting an establishment of religion," in contravention to the establishment clause!

With all constitutional rights, there's a balancing test. If the Court is to apply the law evenly, they'd need to apply current anti-discrimination employment laws to the Christian school. However, doing so would violate the school's right to freely exercise their faith. As with the drug scenario I provided above, the Court must make a decision.

In my opinion, the right thing to do is to allow the Christian school to fire the teacher if the reason for firing her was based on her incompatibility with the viewpoints espoused by the school. Indeed, how is the school to function as a Christian institution when teachers don't even adhere to those values? This decision, however, is based on the free exercise clause, however.less

"While I am a happily married woman, I have seen in my life the horror of prejudice and discrimination. As a Christian formerly living under Israeli occupation, I learned that those in power can be ruthless and indiscriminate in their persecution of those who are different (in my case, different for being a Christian)." Wise up. Israel conquered the West Bank fair and square in 1967 due to mou...more

"While I am a happily married woman, I have seen in my life the horror of prejudice and discrimination. As a Christian formerly living under Israeli occupation, I learned that those in power can be ruthless and indiscriminate in their persecution of those who are different (in my case, different for being a Christian)."

Wise up. Israel conquered the West Bank fair and square in 1967 due to mounting attacks from Egypt and Syria. Boundaries change all the time. Americans now sit on land that once belonged to other people as well. By the way, Israel lost some of the land originally given to them by Britain due to Arab attacks before 1967. Maybe those Arabs are now "occupying" Israeli land as well?

As for Israeli persecution of Christians, Israel desires to maintain a Jewish majority to ensure that no laws are ever passed to reduce the rights of Jews like with what happened in Germany subsequent to the holocaust. In this latter case, the german legislature began passing laws that banned Jews from marrying non-Jews, banned Jews from owning property, etc., several years before Hitler came into power. Jews in Israel, to ensure this doesn't happen, insist on keeping a Jewish majority. Obviously, I don't agree that people of other faiths should be discriminated against in terms of being denied basic human rights.less

CLARIFICATION Having done more research on this issue, I am in agreement that as the principle endorsed the prayer breakfast privately and not while working for the school system, he had a right to do this. Note, I completely stand by my opinion that at present, had the principal, while working at the school system, encouraged teachers to attend to the prayer breakfast, such actions would be u...more

CLARIFICATION

Having done more research on this issue, I am in agreement that as the principle endorsed the prayer breakfast privately and not while working for the school system, he had a right to do this. Note, I completely stand by my opinion that at present, had the principal, while working at the school system, encouraged teachers to attend to the prayer breakfast, such actions would be unconstitutional based on current U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The actuality of the laws aside, I also believe that the law at present is correct for all the reasoning I listed in my prior posts.

Further, I believe government involvement with prayer and religion should be completely non-existent. Indeed, I'm glad the national day of prayer was held to be unconstitutional earlier this year. If you want to pray for yourself, for others, or for a nation, do it on your own time. You have a 1st Amendment free exercise right to do so. However, leave the government out of it. Why unnecessarily join the wheat with the tares anyhow, Christians?less

I completely side with the lady on this one. Because she's not an agent of the state or an actual housing manager, she has a right to live where and with who she wants to. She also has a right under the 1st Amendment free exercise of religion clause. The only question I have is why someone who places an ad to sell their home in a magazine can't discriminate against potential buyers on the basis...more

I completely side with the lady on this one. Because she's not an agent of the state or an actual housing manager, she has a right to live where and with who she wants to. She also has a right under the 1st Amendment free exercise of religion clause. The only question I have is why someone who places an ad to sell their home in a magazine can't discriminate against potential buyers on the basis of race, religion, etc. I suspect the difference is that the homeowners won't personally be living with the buyer and thus can be prevented from discriminating against an otherwise qualified buyer.less

Ketch22, I'm laughing because you are the epitome of an angry, homespun, blue collar man armed with a rudimentary understanding of theology, and thinking due to this that your beliefs are sacrosanct. You are anything but tolerant of people who think differently than you do. I base this off your posts here, but also your blog which you shamelessly plug here all the time ("look at me!," you seem t...more

Ketch22, I'm laughing because you are the epitome of an angry, homespun, blue collar man armed with a rudimentary understanding of theology, and thinking due to this that your beliefs are sacrosanct. You are anything but tolerant of people who think differently than you do. I base this off your posts here, but also your blog which you shamelessly plug here all the time ("look at me!," you seem to say).

After you tell Johnzon that you love him, you than proceed to rip into him, calling him ignorant of the world around him, a subjective statement which you treat as open and shut truth. Maybe, it is you who needs to become more aware of the world around you!

Anyhow, I'd suggest you study church state relations and ERVS, but I'd be severely digressing at this point.less

No fear of prayer breakfasts on my part. I just don't want them to be endorsed or held by government officials in their official capacity. If they want to attend them privately, by all means, go ahead.

Yes. The Old Testment DIDN'T authorize the bullying and mistreatment of other peoples and nations at all. Oh, silly me. I forgot about how the ancient nation of Israel was commanded to slaughter the former inhabitants of the promised land. See Deut. 20: 10-17. I agree with you that the New Testament is a bit more polite, however.

Yeah. Bring it on. Any fundamentalist religious zealots want to tackle this one? Come on DP! Come on impervious to reasoning! Come on prophet! I bet you all enjoy a three against one debate.

"What rights are being trampled on when this principal endorsed a prayer breakfast at a public school?"Okay, all you fundamentalists want to play this game? Fine.What rights are being trampled on when two gay men or women who love each other want to get married?

DP, If you read the Jefferson quote, he mentions religion being something personal and private between man and God. He also specifically says that the government can reach actions, however. Based on this Jefferson is advocating for strong private religious expression, while also believing in preventing other people's private beliefs from becoming policy in any way. The wall of separation go...more

DP,

If you read the Jefferson quote, he mentions religion being something personal and private between man and God. He also specifically says that the government can reach actions, however. Based on this Jefferson is advocating for strong private religious expression, while also believing in preventing other people's private beliefs from becoming policy in any way. The wall of separation goes both ways: (1) Government CAN'T reach religious beliefs (2) Government CAN reach religious actions that are attempts at religious-based policy in this country.

Think about it: if you had your way, you'd be okay with the government specifically setting up Christian institutions, prayer days, etc. However, to people who don't believe in this religion (or any religion) doesn't this violate their private right to free expression? It certainly does. Yet, creating a secular country allows everyone equal footing. Atheists don't get there way, Christians don't either. The only one who comes out ahead our secularists, and that's a necessary evil to avoid the mutually exclusive nature of religion.

Sending you love,

LSPless

Believer, In response to your posts encouraging me to change my ID, I think you should change ID to "impervious to reasoning" or "Christian simpleton." I'm done debating with you, because I can see that regardless of the evidence, you won't change your opinion. Kind of sad really to know such close-minded people exist.

DP, who cares about the founding fathers? The bottom line is that they didn't include their definition of things in the constitution. Thus any vagueness such as what constitutes "establishment," how "religion" should be defined, and other term of art words present in the constitution can be defined by later generations in whatever way is deemed to be common sense for our society. What the foun...more

DP, who cares about the founding fathers? The bottom line is that they didn't include their definition of things in the constitution. Thus any vagueness such as what constitutes "establishment," how "religion" should be defined, and other term of art words present in the constitution can be defined by later generations in whatever way is deemed to be common sense for our society. What the founders did on their own time is only meaningful with respect to 18th century society.

I know Christians tout solo sciprtura with respect to the Bible, and that's fine. However there's no evidence that the constitution was intended to be treated in this fashion-even by the founders! Indeed, the founders came from England, a country rife with judge made common law! Yet nowhere is common law made illegal or prohibited anywhere! Thus judge made law is preserved here!

Boom!

Sending you love,
LSPless

1. Sure they are endorsing something. Study the case law disseminated by the U.S. Supreme Court with regards to what constitutes endorsement. You lose! When a governmental employee in his official capacity supports a prayer breakfast for public school teachers, that is endorsing religion over non-religion, sorry. Oh, and so is a national day of prayer, which is why I'm glad a lower court str...more

1. Sure they are endorsing something. Study the case law disseminated by the U.S. Supreme Court with regards to what constitutes endorsement. You lose! When a governmental employee in his official capacity supports a prayer breakfast for public school teachers, that is endorsing religion over non-religion, sorry. Oh, and so is a national day of prayer, which is why I'm glad a lower court struck that down as well.

2. This isn't a free speech case, it's a free exercise of religion versus establishment of religion case. Free speech isn't at issue because these religious clauses better address the issue going on-religious expression versus endorsement. I agree speech itself is at issue here, but due to the nature of the speech, any judge would analyze it based on the religious clauses. Never went to law school did you?

3. Agree. If a student wants to pray on his/her own, they have every right to under the freedom of expression clause. Again, this is how a court would rule, not under the freedom of speech clause.

4. I'm afraid of all the stuff listed in my prior posts. Due to world history, I'm convinced that strict separation of church and state and mandated secularism, while allowing individuals the right to privately worship as they choose is the only way to fly. I will continue to voice my opinion on this matter whenever possible.

Sending you love,

LSPless