by Tina Grazier
A comment was posted this morning that created the necessity to address the meaning of that part of the First Amendment to the Constitution that prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion and prohibiting the free exercise of religion by the free citizens of this nation. Let’s begin with a quote from Jefferson. It shows his understanding of the notion of free will and the influence this had in the creation of a nation of free citizens:
“Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was his Almighty power to do.” – Thomas Jefferson’s opening lines to the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, 1786
What an incredible blessing. We are free people as a reflection of the Biblical notion of free will. It’s unfortunate that some in our society don’t appreciate what Jefferson has said in this quote.
It was no accident that our nation was established a free nation with authority vested in the people. It’s no accident that our founders chose not to instill a king to rule over the people. It is no accident that individual protections were designed into the Constitution and Bill of Rights to assure that every citizen had religious, speech, and press freedoms. These freedoms were made clear and solidified in the very first amendment to our Constitution to protect every citizen from a tyrannical form of government.
In recent decades the so-called “separation of church and state” has been used as a means to distort the meaning of the first amendment and silence certain expression. It has been used with great success as a means to undermine religious and moral influence in our schools and in our politics. But it is a lie, a distortion, that must be countered.
The phrase “separation of church and state,” was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. It was written more than a decade after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. But the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution or in any of the debates leading to its ratification. The complete undistorted sentence reads as follows:
“…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 & State.
The wall he refers to prohibits government from establishing a state religion and it prohibits government’s intrusion into religious freedom, its practice and expression. The wall protects individuals from state tyranny and the tyranny of group intimidation and oppression.
Certain radical elements have used the incomplete sentiment, “separation of church and state”, as a bludgeon…as justification for removing the moral tenets of the Bible from our classrooms and the public square. As a means of intimidating to silence those citizens with religious and moral convictions they don’t share. But the First Amendment gave them no such right. It says, I repeat:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The Amendment continues regarding the speech and press rights of all Americans. Together they solidify the rights of Americans to express themselves openly and freely without restriction. Civility and respect are assumed as tenets of good citizenship and agreement with the Constitutional principles under which we all live.
Extremists who work to influence and control through intimidation and degradation show they have no respect for the First Amendment or the rights of the people.
The important protections imbedded in the Bill of Rights address our most basic freedoms including the right of each and every individual to express his religious beliefs, or lack thereof, freely. It does not give anyone the right to impose his beliefs, religious or secular, on other citizens. It does not give anyone the right to restrict certain speech.
Open contempt of the views of others breeds discontent, division, and chaos. Open and free expression is both necessary and healthy to maintain our freedom. When all views are respected and given full voice damaging discord can be avvoided.
We at Post Scripts offer a platform for the free expression of ideas and beliefs. We welcome all opinions. We ask only that respect be shown to others and that reasonable restraint be maintained to keep our deliberations civil and suitable for young readers. As we write let us remember to honor the freedom of expression that the First Amendment affords each of us by showing respect to each other. We owe it to our posterity!
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
To the extent that some would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.
Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views–in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Can you let us know what comment you’re referring to? Also, it’d be nice to see some examples of how you believe “certain radical elements” have distorted the phrase “separation of church and state.” I agree with you that the issue of religious freedom has been distorted beyond recognition by radicals, but probably in a different way than you believe this has been done.
Certain radical elements have distorted the right to religious freedom in order to impose their views on others and restrict speech. For example, radical hate groups such as the American Family Association have argued that consensual homosexual relations should be outlawed, even though that was ruled unconstitutional a long time ago, simply because it violates their religious beliefs. They have also advocated in favor of Russia’s strict anti-gay laws, which restrict any public speech that paints homosexuality in a positive light. The hate group’s leader, Bryan Fischer, has implied on the AFA website that the U.S. should follow Russia’s lead on these laws, writing, “Bottom line: for the first time in my life, I say it’s time for us to be more like Russia.”
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147538697
In that article, Fischer condemns the violence and brutality that has been inflicted upon gays by some Russian supporters of the law, writing, “The solution to sexual deviancy is not vigilante justice.”
Yet Fischer himself has advocated for vigilante justice against gays on his own Twitter page and radio show, saying that a woman who kidnapped her biological daughter from the lesbian couple that was raising her was justified in doing so, and called for a new “Underground Railroad to protect innocent children from same-sex households.” On the AFA’s website, Fischer wrote that “If a mother or a pastor are faced with a choice between doing what man commands them to do and what God directs them to do, they must follow the voice of God, especially when vulnerable young children are the ones at risk.”
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147525394
To support his theocratic views, Fischer has has lied about MLK Jr.’s views to support his own in an article entitled, “Martin Luther King, Jr. did not believe in the separation of church and state,” a claim proven wrong in the very first comment on his post.
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147539028
Fischer has threatened legal action against members of the military who have correctly identified the AFA as an anti-gay hate group. He and supporters of the AFA claim that doing so violates their religious freedom. That is clearly ridiculous as any rational reading of the First Amendment shows. Freedom of religion is not freedom from criticism. The AFA is not asking for the right to believe and worship as they see fit. They are asking to use their power in order to impose their views on others. They are against freedom of speech for gays and their supporters, as shown by their advocacy for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and Russia’s laws banning pro-gay speech. They don’t just want the freedom to do as they wish, they want the power to make others comply with their strict interpretation of Christianity. Fischer’s group has no basis for suing a member of the military who was just exercising his own free speech rights. The answer to speech one does not like is more speech. But the AFA can’t handle that because they know they are losing the battle of ideas, so they instead turn to threats and intimidation against those who recognize them for who they are.
Yes, the idea of freedom of religion has been sorely abused, but perhaps not by the people you think.
Doug welcome to Post Scripts. Your comments are thoughtful, informative and respectful. Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Question: Do you think that the study of morality religion and religious practices and beliefs should be completely avoided in our schools? Or do you think that such study would enrich the educational experience for students?
I am of the opinion that education requires investigation and discussion into the religions of the world as a part of social studies classes. There isn’t time for in depth investigation at the grammar school and high school levels but certainly there is room to recognize the place religion has had in various societies and on the moral fabric of those societies.
Also to what degree do you think the “separation of church and state” stance played into creating federally supported schools? Originally schools were locally established and supported. This practice better reflected the Constitutional powers articulated in the Tenth Amendment and “reserved to the states and the people”.
Perhaps the federal government should be neutral, or silent, regarding religious expression in schools leaving each state to determine the extent to which expression is allowed.
We have given the federal government much more power over our lives than was intended in the establishment of our republic.
By the way, I like your handle.
Chris I will not reveal which comment inspired this post.
Thanks for expressing your thoughts on the separation of church and state.
Off Topic.
60 Minutes tonight will have an interview with a Benghazi survivor at 7pm.
Thx Peggy and thanks for coming to our meeting and supporting us.
Tina, I much support the study of morality and religion in high schools as long as it is done objectively and is not misused for proselytizing.
As for the role of separation of church and state in public schools, that is a large topic. You are right to note that the Constitution originally limited only the federal government in this regard. As the federal government did not operate schools, there was no occasion for the issue to arise. After the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and later held to extend to the states the First Amendment’s limitations on government action about religion, the issue was bound to arise since the states were by then operating extensive public school systems. The 14th Amendment substantially changed our federal system, and that is but one of many ways.
I read Mark Strasser’s 2011 book, Religion, Education and the State, which discusses the issue at length. I have to confess, though, that I found his style rather plodding, dense, and difficult to follow, so less of it sunk in and stuck than I would have liked. He made plain, though, that he thinks the Supreme Court has made a hash of its jurisprudence in this area.
Doug makes a lot of good points and I enjoyed reading his comments.
I grew up in the 1950’s and I can’t remember a time when we didn’t say the Pledge of Allegiance or that we were ever asked to say a prayer. But, Bible morals were discussed plenty of times and I think the kids profited off that wisdom. It made you think, it gave you a conscience I like to believe it made us better people. However, too many paranoid school officials today have gone to rediculous extremes to avoid any hint of absolutely the smallest thing related to the Bible, Christmas songs, Easter, Bible quotes or commentary on Jesus, even in a historical sense. That’s a shame.
I’m pleased to say the Pledge of Allegiance has survived only it’s said a little differently in some places in this state. The new version goes like this…
Yo prometo lealtad a la bandera de los estados Unidos de America, y a la Republica que representa, una Nacion bajo Dios, entera, con libertad y justicia para todos.
Oh well, least its still said.
Jack it all goes to the training and grounding of the teachers we had in the fifties. None that I had would have dreamed of imposing his personal views and beliefs on his students and all had a strong sense of our founding documents and the importance of our freedoms. They were in charge of their classrooms and insisted on civility and respect for one another in the classroom.
By the time my kids were in junior high and high school a lot had changed. My oldest son had a civics teacher tell the class that socialism and communism were superior forms of government.
Reminds me of a line ftom a sixties song, “…Ya don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone”. Joni Mitchel was concerned about pavement. In this case its the republic. I fear the young people who seem so gungho for socialism just have no idea what they are sacrificing.
Doug it sounds like you absorbed quite a bit. I’m about to read Diane Wests controversial book, “American Betrayal” about the influence of communism in our nations capitol. It’s hard for me to find time since I spend so much time here.
Anyway, I really appreciate your comments and hope you will join us again as the mood strikes.
“But the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.”
But this one does: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ….”
Still, you will deny it, our Queen of Denial will.
Libby, Tina has it right, that phrase you quoted means (and it is generally accepted), that the State can’t select a national religion to impose on the people over any other. This is called the Establishment Clause and it is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. These two clauses make up what are called the “Religion Clauses” of the First Amendment.
It absolutely does not prohibit the recognition of Christianity as our founding religion or where we draw our moral authority from…which is found in the Bible. If you walk around Washington DC you will see how our Christian heritage is so prfoundly embeded in almost every area of government.
Tina: “Doug it sounds like you absorbed quite a bit. I’m about to read Diane Wests controversial book, “American Betrayal” about the influence of communism in our nations capitol. It’s hard for me to find time since I spend so much time here.”
You’re not missing much–West is a modern day McCarthyist who believes Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, participated in the witch hunt against Huma Abedein, and claims that Obamacare is the first step of a world-wide caliphate. She’s certifiably nuts.
Jack: “Libby, Tina has it right, that phrase you quoted means (and it is generally accepted), that the State can’t select a national religion to impose on the people over any other…It absolutely does not prohibit the recognition of Christianity as our founding religion or where we draw our moral authority from…which is found in the Bible.”
…what?
You realize the second sentence there completely contradicts the first, don’t you?
Our nation does not have a “founding religion.” That would, obviously, violate the clause stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of.”
And what do you mean by “we?” The government certainly does not draw “moral authority” from Christianity, nor do many of its citizens.
This is not to deny the Christian heritage of our nation, or to say that the Founders weren’t influenced by Christianity. Of course they were–it would have been impossible for men of that time and place not to be. Most of them were Christians, but they took pains to ensure that there would be no national religion. You can’t admit that one second and then claim we have a “founding religion” the next. That makes absolutely no sense.
“It absolutely does not prohibit the recognition of Christianity as our founding religion or where we draw our moral authority from.”
Of course it does, because that would be “establishing” a national religion. Deny it all you like. It would. Which is why it has not been done, lo, these 230-some years.
And, still, we must fight off the machinations of bigoted establishmentarians. Scary, that is.
And let’s be real here. You and Tina and your attitude toward the dispossessed of the town … I’m sorry … but to my mind, you can lay claim to not a single Christian principle, certainly not the biggie … charity.
I’m surprised you had the gall to bring this up.
Libby: “But this one does: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ….”
Still, you will deny it, our Queen of Denial will.”
From the article:
Chris: “The government certainly does not draw “moral authority” from Christianity, nor do many of its citizens.”
that is not what Jack was attempting to impart.
I know this is difficult for progressives.
Jack is attempting to tell you what Jefferson said in the quote at the beginning of the article:
The recognition of free will, the recognition that no man should have the power to rule over others, a Biblical concept, was the seed that formed the tenets of our freedoms. The example: That God had the power as creator to impose his will upon us and yet chose to give us freedom, free will, the power to direct our own lives was used to construct our government. It guided the founders in establishing laws to protect individual free will.
To the extent that the founders were religiously aware of free will the First amendment reflects Gods example.
You don’t have to believe it, I suppose, but as Jack points out the evidence is all over the place in Washington DC.
Christianity guided the founders on this important point; we should at least recognize and be grateful that it did.
Having said that nobody who recognizes the influence expects that Christianity should be established as the religion of record. Nobody has suggested as much. What is happening is a vast push back to those who deny such influence and the blessing that Christian men afforded all Americans in writing it into the founding documents.
The resistance to this is unreasonable, illogical, and emotional beyond belief.
Libby: “And, still, we must fight off the machinations of bigoted establishmentarians. Scary, that is.”
Relax lady. You are at war with your own imaginations.
Tina: “The recognition of free will, the recognition that no man should have the power to rule over others, a Biblical concept, was the seed that formed the tenets of our freedoms. The example: That God had the power as creator to impose his will upon us and yet chose to give us freedom, free will, the power to direct our own lives was used to construct our government. It guided the founders in establishing laws to protect individual free will.
To the extent that the founders were religiously aware of free will the First amendment reflects Gods example.
You don’t have to believe it, I suppose, but as Jack points out the evidence is all over the place in Washington DC.
Christianity guided the founders on this important point; we should at least recognize and be grateful that it did.”
That makes sense.
“Having said that nobody who recognizes the influence expects that Christianity should be established as the religion of record. Nobody has suggested as much.”
But Jack DID suggest that when he said “It absolutely does not prohibit the recognition of Christianity as our founding religion,” unless he means something different by the term “founding religion” than what that usually means.
“What is happening is a vast push back to those who deny such influence and the blessing that Christian men afforded all Americans in writing it into the founding documents.
The resistance to this is unreasonable, illogical, and emotional beyond belief.”
Tina, there are organizations out there who are pushing for their version of Christianity to be imposed on the masses. I detailed how the AFA tries to restrict free speech above. Others like David Barton have argued that freedom of religion was never meant to apply to non-Christians. It is not illogical or emotional to oppose this. To be fair, some have gone too far, like believing a Bible can’t be displayed on a desk or prohibiting kids from thanking God at a graduation ceremony. But you can’t concede that anyone on the other side has done things that are just as bad. I don’t get why.
Chris, what I meant by saying Christianity was our founding religion was that the influence and guidance by Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Druids, Dervish, Lamaism, and others was totally absent at the time we founded the colonies. If there was a religion that was guiding the hand of those who crafted laws and wrote the doctrine incorporated in our foundation, then it was Christianity and the Bible and no other. I won’t argue that many forms of Christianity were involved in our politics, but despite the various names their reference book on how things ought to be was the Holy Bible.
The principles of inalienable rights and the very notion of sovereign individuals were all concepts based on the authority of the Bible. Christianity… and no other, was the basis for so many ideas incorporated in the formation of the United States. This is a historical fact and it is why I said Christianity was our founding religion. It was by virtue of it’s enormous influence on every idealism we embraced in those early years. That didn’t make us an oligarchy, and it didn’t make Christianity the national religion. We did not want a national religion, even though in the early stages some colonies wanted one and some states tried to impose one, it was rejected for the broader belief that government should only be responsible for protecting the free practice of one’s religion and government should avoid imposing a State religion. I hope this explanation addresses your concerns?
“Certain radical elements have used the incomplete sentiment, “separation of church and state”, as a bludgeon…as justification for removing the moral tenets of the Bible from our classrooms and the public square.”
Because … public schoolrooms and public squares are public places … and some of the public are not Christians … and they too are entitled to live … unbludgeoned.
Why this is so difficult for you to comprehend … I cannot understand. Two-hundred-and-thirty-some years worth of your fellow citizens have had no trouble with it.
So we have the menorah up, and the christmas tree up, and the Buddists go: “what is WRONG with these people?”, but very politely keep the sentiment to themselves.
Libby the moral lessons of the Bible have been driven out of our classrooms but the lessons I’m speaking about are suitable for any civilian. Basic morality in Western civilizations sprang from the Bible because the West has been predominantly Christian (and Jewish). The Ten Commandments don’t have to be read in class on a daily basis but the fact that they influenced civility in the West cannot be denied without appearing to be clueless and certainly could be part of the curriculum.
Can we all not agree that we should not kill each other, steal from each other? Is it not wise to refrain from jealousy and envy? Is it not wise for children to respect their elders whether they agree with them or not?
If you were not so convinced that I wish to impose my religion on others you might have the space to realize these lessons in morality have been shoved to the sidelines…and our society reflects the absence. Children are not born moral beings; they must be carefully taught.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, just to appease a few kooks and nuts, has been a disaster.
“If there was a religion that was guiding the hand of those who crafted laws and wrote the doctrine incorporated in our foundation, then it was Christianity and the Bible and no other.”
Actually, Jack, even this is not correct. Several of the founders and framers of the Constitution were big, bad humanists. Got this lovely bit off Wiki:
‘the trenchantly witty Age of Reason (1793) … pours scorn on the supernatural pretensions of scripture, combining Voltairean mockery with Paine’s own style of taproom ridicule to expose the absurdity of a theology built on a collection of incoherent Levantine folktales.’
Hee hee.
I think that Jack is spot on here with the possible exception of omission. Certainly the knowledge of the concepts of the G-d and man of the Christan Bible played a central role in the formation of our nation, but so did the products of the Renaissance and the Reformation. These people were well read.
Americans should be free to study and practice religion anywhere they please, including K-12 schools. The left (aka progressive/socialist/communists) who are trying and succeeding to excise religion from K-12 and government buildings are people who seek to excise religion and the free exercise of it. At the same time they deny the significant role religion (particularly the Christian religion) has played in the creation of the United States.
It seems fairly clear that theirs is an atheist/socialist/communist/progressive goal.
Who is the radical? The person who loves and respects the constitution or the person who seeks to twist and distort its meaning and thus destroy it?
The ever snotty al-Libby strikes out again, Jack. None of Thomas Paine’s “Age Of Reason” made it into the Constitution, however the Age Of Enlightenment had a significant effect on the mindset of the framers. At least as much as the Christian Bible, in my humble opinion.
Paine was the atheist (non-deist) while other great thinkers worked to reconcile science and religion. Perhaps al-Libby would care to identify the atheistic content of the constitution that denies the existence of a deity and those “humanists” who put it in there.
Ooops, sorry Tina! In the above I wrote addressed Jack where I should have been addressing you! Oh, still works.
Libby: “And let’s be real here. You and Tina and your attitude toward the dispossessed of the town … I’m sorry … but to my mind, you can lay claim to not a single Christian principle, certainly not the biggie … charity.”
You do not know the Bible. In it there is a passage that if a man does not work he shall not eat. There are warnings against slovenliness and idleness.
This would come under the heading of civic standards as well. What is the main tenet of Alanon? Stop being an enabler!!!
And you have conveniently forgotten that Jack and I both believe strongly in private charitable work in his area…because it has been shown to have a better track record.
Do you actually care that these people are supported or are you only interested in your own image?
Pie thanks for that brilliant clarification. May I add a couple of points?
Christian/Judeo principles shaped all of Western civilization.
The founders were well aware of the tyranny of the king and the value in being a free man.
Progressive/socialist/communists are not only excising religion from the classroom they are excising morality from society in general! (Starting with themselves)
Actually Pie, sometimes even I can’t tell the difference 😉
Jack and Tina, most of what you say in your most recent comments is true, but when you use phrases like “founding religion” my alarm bells go off. I don’t think that is unreasonable. There are people who genuinely want us to have a national religion and who wish to deprive religious minorities of their rights. Some of these people, like David Barton, wield a lot of influence over certain segments of the right wing.
Of course kids should learn about the Ten Commandments in schools. I am not sure where the idea comes from that kids aren’t learning about religion. I learned about all the religions of the world in 7th grade history: Christianity, Buddhism, Islam…it was fascinating. And that was only ten years ago here in California? Have things changed? I hear the claim that it has a lot but I haven’t seen much evidence.
There have been instances where I think the left has gone too far–getting rid of Christmas songs is silly. I was in choir from elementary all through high school and never once did we get rid of a song just because it had explicitly Christian references. It’s music. I understand the need to respect religious differences, but that’s why you offer diversity in the song selection and let kids opt out if they or their parents are uncomfortable. I also think instances of teachers asking kids to remove cross necklaces are absurd, but as I understand it the ACLU has defended those kids in such instances.
The balance between freedom of religious expression and freedom from imposition of religion is a delicate one, but I think we can figure it out together.
Pie Guevara: “Who is the radical? The person who loves and respects the constitution or the person who seeks to twist and distort its meaning and thus destroy it?”
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! It’s the one who hates the constitution and freedom!
“Americans should be free to study and practice religion anywhere they please, including K-12 schools. The left (aka progressive/socialist/communists) who are trying and succeeding to excise religion from K-12 and government buildings are people who seek to excise religion and the free exercise of it.”
People keep saying things like this without giving examples. To some extent, religion does need to be excised from government. I don’t believe courts should have the Ten Commandments displayed, for instance. Courts do not have religious rights. Neither do government buildings. Only people have religious rights.
The problem is some can’t understand the difference between the rights people have as individuals and the rights they have when acting as agents of government. For example, there was a story a while back about a teacher, Jerry Buell, who was disciplined after posting some anti-gay sentiments on his Facebook page. That, to me, was unfair; the guy has the right to express his political opinions on his page without fear of retribution. He was not acting as a teacher at the time, he was acting as an individual. (Then again, as a student teacher, I already feel like I have to censor my thoughts on my own page just in case an administrator or student stumbles upon it, so I can sympathize with the guy even though I disagree with him.)
But later it came out that the guy had written in his class syllabus, which went out to all the students, “I teach God’s truth.” That was totally inappropriate and should have gotten him disciplined long before the Facebook incident. As a public school teacher, it was not his job to teach kids “God’s truth.” It was his job to teach them history. That was absolutely out of line for a government employee, and to me amounts to an imposition of religion. And yet he was only disciplined for his private expression of free speech? Totally backwards.
Then there are instances of kids being prohibited from thanking God in their graduation speeches. That is insane. Unless you think every kid up there is speaking on behalf of the government, then what grounds do people (and in this case, they are almost entirely people of the left) have to complain? Teachers, I can understand; they do speak on behalf of the government, and have some small degree of government power over their students. But students are not government employees and it is obvious that a graduation speech, while perhaps a reflection of the school culture, does not necessarily represent all views of the school.
So let the kids thank God and the teachers vent on their Facebooks. But when you proselytize in the classroom, you cross the line.
I really don’t see why this is hard for so many on both the left and the right.
Re #32 Chris :”People keep saying things like this without giving examples. To some extent, religion does need to be excised from government.”
Interesting. Progressive Chris does his usual trivial slam demanding evidence (he could easily do his own homework, I sure as heck am not going to do it for him) and then provides exactly the evidence he demands with his own admissions.
The evidence is abundant, no need to make citations here. The very least Chris could do is a few Google searches, given he has the intellectual curiosity to bother. Probably not, too busy trying to rid government buildings of any reference to the Ten Commandments.
By the way, since when did teachers speak on behalf of the government? That is news to me. They are, ostensibly, supposed to teach. Not be government (or religious) stooges.
Chris: “Some of these people, like David Barton, wield a lot of influence over certain segments of the right wing.”
It can’t be too widespread. I’d never heard of him until you brought him up. If anything the Christian lobby generally has lost power in the last decade or so.
The biggest pain in the butt about all of the very radical anti-Christian, anti-flag elements is that they have been able to wield so much power over the majority who pretty much feel as you do about religion.
I think there may be regional differences that are at play here too. People from the Bay Area have no business trying to decide what should and shouldn’t be allowed in Arkansas or Tennessee. I’m in favor of local control of school curriculum as much as possible in these matters.
Tina: “It can’t be too widespread. I’d never heard of him until you brought him up.”
Peggy’s brought him up a lot. He’s Glenn Beck’s favorite “historian,” despite (or actually, because of) the fact that he’s pretty much ridiculed by actual historians. He’s been pretty instrumental in the revision of Texas history books, which influences all text books in America.