Believer, I'm going to clarify my position once again for you. 1. "You really need to consider an ID name change since your lasts posts to me are anything but logical such as saying something will bring us closer to a certain mindset is not the same as comparing us to that certain mindset . . ." Yep, perfectly logical, based on examining the history of church/state relations in Europe f...more

Believer,

I'm going to clarify my position once again for you.

1. "You really need to consider an ID name change since your lasts posts to me are anything but logical such as saying something will bring us closer to a certain mindset is not the same as comparing us to that certain mindset . . ."

Yep, perfectly logical, based on examining the history of church/state relations in Europe from the Roman Empire, though the middle ages, through the age of enlightenment, all the way to the holocaust. Mindsets are not formed over night, but begin slowly through centuries of societal trends.

This is why Justice Black says with respect to uniting church and state, "That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

ADMITTEDLY, A government official endorsing a prayer breakfast is not even close to being the same as a government official encouraging the persecution and murder and of someone of a different religion. HOWEVER, I argue it's a small step that COULD lead us in that direction if followed by a dozen or so more steps, each one uniting church with state further. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with me.

2. "Plus, are you saying this man can no longer attend the church of his choice since to do so could be seen as a government endorsement since everyone knows his position in the community?"

Nope. Not saying that at all. The First Amendment Free Exercise clause allows anyone to believe what they want, attend the church of their choice, etc. However, the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment prohibits government endorsement of religion. So, in your example, the principle is free to attend church and believe what he wants. However, while acting as a government employee, he cannot encourage people publicly to attend that church or encourage others to believe the way he does (he could do it as a private citizen on his day off, or when not at work, however). Frankly, this makes sense, due to the evils that have resulted throughout history when church and state have been united.

3. Read the quote I posted about Jefferson again. Specifically look at: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions."

A few things according to Jefferson: (A) religion is a personal matter, (B) No one should have to justify their religious beliefs to anyone, and (C) Most importantly, the government reaches actions, not opinions.

You see Believer, a wall of separation goes two ways: (A) People have a private right to believe what they want (B) The Government does not have the right to endorse or encourage religion in any mannerless

Centuries DO NOT bear witness to the evils of secular nations. In such nations, people can live freely, privately believing what they wish, while not entitled to use the government to publicly force their views on others. P.S. I'm thrilled the nation day of prayer was held to be unconstitutional earlier this year. Go pray in private and leave the U.S. government out of it!

Also, I'm not arguing that the U.S. should be an ATHEIST country, like the USSR was. Rather, I'm arguing based on common sense that this country should be a SECULAR nation. How many people have secular countries killed? Where's you proof? Come on Prophet!!

Prophet, my response. 1. The government is endorsing something-a prayer breakfast, a religious event in violation of separation of church and state. What ever happened to Romans 13? 2. A person endorsing something like this will not QUICKLY spiral downhill, you are right. However, its a small chink in a chain that could lead us in that direction, if followed by other victories for the ...more

Prophet, my response.

1. The government is endorsing something-a prayer breakfast, a religious event in violation of separation of church and state. What ever happened to Romans 13?

2. A person endorsing something like this will not QUICKLY spiral downhill, you are right. However, its a small chink in a chain that could lead us in that direction, if followed by other victories for the uniting church with state crowd. Centuries of European history proves this.

3. There is a vast difference, I agree. However, allowing a public employee to endorse religion will lead the right wingers to begin pushing for more religious based actions in the public square. If given the choice, I'm betting many people in this country would love to have the public schools praying to Jesus. Allowing the principle to this here, would make it easier for these people to win their cause.

4. I care if a Muslim teacher, an atheist teacher, a Christian teacher, etc., encourages their faculty and students on a public platform to attend events dealing with these beliefs. If they want to do it privately as a friend, that's okay. But not publicly while acting as a government employee.less

"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?

Believer, I'm going to clarify my position once again for you. 1. "You really need to consider an ID name change since your lasts posts to me are anything but logical such as saying something will bring us closer to a certain mindset is not the same as comparing us to that certain mindset . . ." Yep, perfectly logical, based on examining the history of church/state relations in Europe...more

Believer,

I'm going to clarify my position once again for you.

1. "You really need to consider an ID name change since your lasts posts to me are anything but logical such as saying something will bring us closer to a certain mindset is not the same as comparing us to that certain mindset . . ."

Yep, perfectly logical, based on examining the history of church/state relations in Europe from the Roman Empire, though the middle ages, through the age of enlightenment, all the way to the holocaust. Mindsets are not formed over night, but begin slowly through centuries of societal trends.

This is why Justice Black says with respect to uniting church and state, "That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

ADMITTEDLY, A government official endorsing a prayer breakfast is not even close to being the same as a government official encouraging the persecution and murder and of someone of a different religion. HOWEVER, I argue it's a small step that COULD lead us in that direction if followed by a dozen or so more steps, each one uniting church with state further. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with me.

2. "Plus, are you saying this man can no longer attend the church of his choice since to do so could be seen as a government endorsement since everyone knows his position in the community?"

Nope. Not saying that at all. The First Amendment Free Exercise clause allows anyone to believe what they want, attend the church of their choice, etc. However, the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment prohibits government endorsement of religion. So, in your example, the principle is free to attend church and believe what he wants. However, while acting as a government employee, he cannot encourage people publicly to attend that church or encourage others to believe the way he does (he could do it as a private citizen on his day off, or when not at work, however). Frankly, this makes sense, due to the evils that have resulted throughout history when church and state have been united.

3. Read the quote I posted about Jefferson again. Specifically look at: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions."

A few things according to Jefferson: (A) religion is a personal matter, (B) No one should have to justify their religious beliefs to anyone, and (C) Most importantly, the government reaches actions, not opinions.

You see Believer, a wall of separation goes two ways: (A) People have a private right to believe what they want (B) The Government does not have the right to endorse or encourage religion in any manner.less

Believer: two things: (1) My key words are "chink in a chain." Arguing something will bring us closer to a cultural mindset isn't the same thing as comparing it. Stop painting everything with a broad brush. This isn't church where being simple is encouraged. Haven't you ever studied sociology/history? 2. You stated: "you really don't understand what the separation of church and state ...more

Believer: two things:

(1) My key words are "chink in a chain." Arguing something will bring us closer to a cultural mindset isn't the same thing as comparing it. Stop painting everything with a broad brush. This isn't church where being simple is encouraged. Haven't you ever studied sociology/history?

2. You stated: "you really don't understand what the separation of church and state issue is really about and the fact it was never intended to deny someone their ability to freely practice their religion."

Free exercise of religion has to do with private belief. Once that belief is taken publicly, it can be limited. Examples: (1) Native Americans cannot legally smoke illegal drugs despite their religious ceremonial purpose. (2) I can't kill someone and claim my religion compels me to it. (3) I can't do something otherwise considered illegal and claim a religious exemption for it.

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that endorsement of religion by a school official violates the 1st Amendment. Arguably, by promoting the prayer breakfast, he, as a government official, endorsed a religious event. Therefore, what the principle did was wrong, irrespective of his religious beliefs.

As for the meaning of separation of church and state, contrary to what lying organizations such as Wall Builders teach, Thomas Jefferson stated:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptist association, 1802.

Let's see you try to twist Jefferson around for your social conservative agenda.less

Clover, Crusades, inquisitions, well poisoning/blood libel of Jews, Holocaust, burning of pagans. I asked for examples-plural. Stalin's reign of terror was horrible, yes. But it doesn't compare to all the violence spouted by religion over the centuries.

Believer, Regardless of how you feel about it, the reasoning I go into has been heartily endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, for better or for worse, it's law for now. Here's a quote from Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp: "The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, ge...more

Believer,

Regardless of how you feel about it, the reasoning I go into has been heartily endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, for better or for worse, it's law for now.

Here's a quote from Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp:

"The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to *9 maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews

* * *
The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Notice the phrase SLIGHTEST BREACH, obviously imply by reasoning is correct: small choices can easily descend into larger results by creating a mindset. Basic sociology for you.less

Believer, That's not what I'm saying. Are you trying to put words in my mouth to accomplish your radical fundamentalist agenda by ridiculing the other side? Fact: societal mindsets are created through slow cultural changes. I suggest you reread and study my posts in greater detail. If you'd like you can even read Constantine's Sword," by James Carroll, which goes into the reasoning...more

Believer,

That's not what I'm saying. Are you trying to put words in my mouth to accomplish your radical fundamentalist agenda by ridiculing the other side?

Fact: societal mindsets are created through slow cultural changes.

I suggest you reread and study my posts in greater detail. If you'd like you can even read Constantine's Sword," by James Carroll, which goes into the reasoning I present in my posts in greater (and more educated) detail.less

This isn't a free speech case, sorry. It's a question of the right to privately practice one's religion under the 1st Amendment free exercise clause versus the prohibition against government endorsement of religion based on the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause. Speech is involved here, but it's incidental given the religious nature of the speech itself. As such, any judge will examine the...more

This isn't a free speech case, sorry. It's a question of the right to privately practice one's religion under the 1st Amendment free exercise clause versus the prohibition against government endorsement of religion based on the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause.

Speech is involved here, but it's incidental given the religious nature of the speech itself. As such, any judge will examine the case based on the two religious clauses in the 1st Amendment.less

Prophet, that's not what I'm saying at all. Can't you read? My posts were a bit lengthy but I'd assume someone such as yourself would be able to process my reasoning, regardless of whether you agree or not.

Okay, can you provide various examples throughout history of the atrocities incurred due to state-sponsored atheism?

Based on my thoughtful responses to your from below, I'd argue the rights trampled on are the rights to live peaceably and without state sponsored blood bath. The fact you can look at history, and not see the correlation between increased government sponsorship of religion and violence worries me. Endorsing a prayer breakfast is but one chink in the chain towards Medieval Europe/pre-Holocaust Ge...more

Based on my thoughtful responses to your from below, I'd argue the rights trampled on are the rights to live peaceably and without state sponsored blood bath. The fact you can look at history, and not see the correlation between increased government sponsorship of religion and violence worries me. Endorsing a prayer breakfast is but one chink in the chain towards Medieval Europe/pre-Holocaust Germany. While the principal is free to pray and worship in private, he should not be endorsing religion while working in his government position as a public school educator. Oh, and the U.S. Supreme Court backs me on this one . . .less

PART II This is slippery slope reasoning, yes, but centuries of history bear witness to what happens when church and state are merged. One little allowance could very quickly lead us down that path again. Therefore to prevent this, strict boundaries between church and state should be enforced. Concluding, before Christianity came on the scene in Medieval Europe, Jews had equal rights in the...more

PART II

This is slippery slope reasoning, yes, but centuries of history bear witness to what happens when church and state are merged. One little allowance could very quickly lead us down that path again. Therefore to prevent this, strict boundaries between church and state should be enforced.

Concluding, before Christianity came on the scene in Medieval Europe, Jews had equal rights in the Roman Empire. After this, their rights were quickly taken away.

"Caesar Augustus pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power, proclaims . . . it seems good to me and to my advisory council, according to the oaths, by the will of the people of the Romans, that the Jews shall use their own customs in accordance with their ancestral law." See: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/roman-jews.html (Ancient History Sourcebook: Roman Sources on the Jews and Judaism, 1 BCE-110 CE).

In contrast:

Theodosian Code XVI.1.2

"It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition . . . According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one diety of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict. " See: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/theodcodeXVI.html, Theodosian Code, Theodosius, 379-395 AD.

Later laws such as this occurred all throughout the middle ages, which spiraled into the death of countless people. All in the name of religion.

Based on this, I will fight tooth and nail to ensure no public school or any other governmental institution endorses any religion.

Frankly, it seems a true Christian would want to keep church and state separate. Why would you want the tares of the world infiltrating what you consider to be the wheat? One of the reasons why many people reject Christianity is assuming the horrible actions of unbelievers who happen to associate themselves with the Christian religion are reflective of the faith itself, not realizing that such people probably aren't true Christians. Separating church and state would prevent more of this sort of thing from happening, allowing true Christians to do their own thing, while the world does theirs.less

PART I Due to centuries of violence and persecution caused by countries that united church with state, the U.S. Supreme Court has created a dividing line between the two to prevent history from repeating. In itself, a prayer breakfast sponsorship is harmless, I agree. However, allowing the government to endorse such things can quickly spiral downhill, by creating a societal mindset. What's ...more

PART I

Due to centuries of violence and persecution caused by countries that united church with state, the U.S. Supreme Court has created a dividing line between the two to prevent history from repeating.

In itself, a prayer breakfast sponsorship is harmless, I agree. However, allowing the government to endorse such things can quickly spiral downhill, by creating a societal mindset. What's next? If the prayer breakfast is allowed, soon religious people will demand that the public schools begin reading the Bible.

Than a question arises: okay, what version? Boom. Suddenly you have wasted government resources spent with meetings involving bickering Catholics, Jews, and Protestants and other religions to resolve this matter.

This in turn could spiral even further to where one would be required to recite a religious oath in order to be elected, to where non believers or members of differing faiths are taxed higher, and to where forced baptisms could occur.

Allow me to go further. I assert that the Holocaust was caused by a mindset that was shaped by centuries of Christian induced hate in Europe. I don't mean to say that true, bible believing Christians caused the holocaust. What I mean is that due to merging church with state, unbelievers, calling themselves Christian were able to use the Christian message to speak and encourage hateful acts against the Jews. These people were able to get away with this due to government sponsorship of religion.less

PART II This is slippery slope reasoning, yes, but centuries of history bear witness to what happens when church and state are merged. One little allowance could very quickly lead us down that path again. Therefore to prevent this, strict boundaries between church and state should be enforced. Concluding, before Christianity came on the scene in Medieval Europe, Jews had equal rights in...more

PART II

This is slippery slope reasoning, yes, but centuries of history bear witness to what happens when church and state are merged. One little allowance could very quickly lead us down that path again. Therefore to prevent this, strict boundaries between church and state should be enforced.

Concluding, before Christianity came on the scene in Medieval Europe, Jews had equal rights in the Roman Empire. After this, their rights were quickly taken away.

"Caesar Augustus pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power, proclaims . . . it seems good to me and to my advisory council, according to the oaths, by the will of the people of the Romans, that the Jews shall use their own customs in accordance with their ancestral law." See: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/roman-jews.html (Ancient History Sourcebook: Roman Sources on the Jews and Judaism, 1 BCE-110 CE).

In contrast:

Theodosian Code XVI.1.2

"It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition . . . According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one diety of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict. " See: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/theodcodeXVI.html, Theodosian Code, Theodosius, 379-395 AD.

Later laws such as this occurred all throughout the middle ages, which spiraled into the death of countless people. All in the name of religion.

Based on this, I will fight tooth and nail to ensure no public school or any other governmental institution endorses any religion.

Frankly, it seems a true Christian would want to keep church and state separate. Why would you want the tares of the world infiltrating what you consider to be the wheat? One of the reasons why many people reject Christianity is assuming the horrible actions of unbelievers who happen to associate themselves with the Christian religion are reflective of the faith itself, not realizing that such people probably aren't true Christians. Separating church and state would prevent more of this sort of thing from happening, allowing true Christians to do their own thing, while the world does theirs.less

PART I 'Prophet,' how about this: Due to centuries of violence and persecution caused by countries that united church with state, the U.S. Supreme Court has created a dividing line between the two to prevent history from repeating. In itself, a prayer breakfast sponsorship is harmless, I agree. However, allowing the government to endorse such things can quickly spiral downhill, by cre...more

PART I

'Prophet,' how about this:

Due to centuries of violence and persecution caused by countries that united church with state, the U.S. Supreme Court has created a dividing line between the two to prevent history from repeating.

In itself, a prayer breakfast sponsorship is harmless, I agree. However, allowing the government to endorse such things can quickly spiral downhill, by creating a societal mindset. What's next? If the prayer breakfast is allowed, soon religious people will demand that the public schools begin reading the Bible.

Than a question arises: okay, what version? Boom. Suddenly you have wasted government resources spent with meetings involving bickering Catholics, Jews, and Protestants and other religions to resolve this matter.

This in turn could spiral even further to where one would be required to recite a religious oath in order to be elected, to where non believers or members of differing faiths are taxed higher, and to where forced baptisms could occur.

Allow me to go further. I assert that the Holocaust was caused by a mindset that was shaped by centuries of Christian induced hate in Europe. I don't mean to say that true, bible believing Christians caused the holocaust. What I mean is that due to merging church with state, unbelievers, calling themselves Christian were able to use the Christian message to speak and encourage hateful acts against the Jews. These people were able to get away with this due to government sponsorship of religion.less

TomG, The true dumb are dumb because they see logic as dumb, unable to discern the dumbness in themselves. You fit this stereotype. Obviously didn't go to law school, did you?

Atheism is becoming the "new religion" (to quote the article) because: 1. The evidence points to naturalism. For example ERVs shows the similarity of viral infection points in both humans and Chimps, thus creating a positive inference for Darwinian evolution. Things once ascribed directly to the supernatural now have a natural explanation. It's only a matter of time before creation itself c...more

Atheism is becoming the "new religion" (to quote the article) because:

1. The evidence points to naturalism. For example ERVs shows the similarity of viral infection points in both humans and Chimps, thus creating a positive inference for Darwinian evolution. Things once ascribed directly to the supernatural now have a natural explanation. It's only a matter of time before creation itself can be explained naturally and apart from God, based on inductive reasoning.
2. The evidence for the Christian God is vague. If the Christian God really existed, you'd think he'd interact directly with humanity in an objective fashion. For example, why doesn't he descend from the clouds rather than simply expect people to believe a book? Instead we're left with vagueness.
3. Christianity is based solely on emotion and psychological intentional/unintentional needs for control and predictability.
4. Many Christians are often hypocrites, condemning gays, complaining about guys with long hair, shrinking about the idea of sex outside of marriage, all the while ignoring the sin in their own life.
5. The Christian God, if he does exist, is cruel as he condemns people to hell, whereas he could easily fix the situation. He's God!! He could dispense with the whole grace thing!
6. Christianity has been responsible for much blood bath throughout history, forcing Jews to convert throughout medieval Europe, slaughtering Muslims, killing each other based on vague theological extrapolations.less