Separation of Church and State?

Don't blame TJ

“Separation of Church and State.” These are five little words that, in their misuse, have become the rallying cry of atheists, agnostics, and others who wish to remove God from the public forum. Thomas Jefferson popularized that phrase, and in so doing has become an icon to those who believe that a free expression of faith in God is incompatible with any government institution, practice, program, or official. In this article, we will explore the birth of the “separation” phrase, the establishment clause of the U.S. constitution, and some other lesser-known things that Thomas Jefferson said. The overall picture will be one that is much different than the one painted by American Atheists or Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In June of 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of California atheist Michael Newdow, saying that the United States Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the words, “under God.” The decision was put on hold, pending a request that the court revisit their ruling. The appeals court refused, and school children in nine Western states will soon be stopped from reciting the pledge in school.

The same atheist, Michael Newdow, also filed suit against President Bush. Why? Because the prayer offered by Rev. Franklin Graham at President Bush’s inauguration was offered “in Jesus’ name.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have successfully sued to have displays of the Ten Commandments removed from government-owned property. They have recently attacked the governor of Alabama for having voluntary Bible studies in his office. They are leading the way in removing prayer and religious symbols from public schools. They are doing all of this under the banner of their favorite catch phrase – separation of church and state.

The First Amendment to the constitution addresses, among other things, religious freedom. Commonly known as the “Establishment Clause,” the First Amendment reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Legal opinions have extended the meaning of the establishment clause to include not only congress, but also all branches of government. The framers of our constitution did not want the government to favor one religion or denomination above the others, and in so doing, establish a state religion. The Church of England served as an example of what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. They wanted each citizen to have the freedom to worship in whatever way he or she chose, without having religious beliefs or practices dictated to them by the government.

You will notice that “separation of church and state” is not mentioned in the first amendment. In fact, it’s not mentioned in the constitution at all. That phrase comes from a letter that founding father and 3rd U.S. President Thomas Jefferson wrote, that reads, in part:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn 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.” [1]

In this letter, Jefferson is actually responding to a letter he had received from the Danbury Baptists of Danbury, CT. They were a minority denomination in that area and were subjected to persecution for their beliefs. They feared that if the government were to adopt a state religion, as it had done in England, that their minority views would be trampled, and they themselves subject to further persecution. Jefferson wrote his letter to them to reassure them that they would remain free to worship as they wished, without needing to fear government interference in their religious beliefs or practices. In fact, he borrowed the term “wall of separation” from famous Baptist minister Roger Williams.

We can see that neither the constitution nor Jefferson’s “separation” letter ever intimates that religious expression must be kept out of the public arena. Yet the ACLU and Americans United continue to lift Jefferson up as a sort of historic “town crier” for their cause. They seem convinced that Jefferson would not have permitted any political recognition of anything remotely religious. Are they correct? You be the judge.

In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer. [2]

In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.” [3]

As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.

On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace,” which petitioned:

“Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.

Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.

Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.

In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.” [4]

As is evident, Jefferson’s belief in a separation between church and state did not preclude the very mention of God under state sanction. If he were not our third president, but our forty-third, I suspect Thomas Jefferson would find himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit for his sundry official statements that specifically mention “God” and “Jesus Christ.”

Nearly 160 years after Jefferson’s death, in the case of Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice William Rehnquist offered the decision of the United States Supreme Court:

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history….The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years....

There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]….The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.” [5]

Offering his dissenting opinion on Michael Newdow’s “pledge lawsuit,” 9th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Ferdinand Fernandez said, in part:

“My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdow’s theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. “God Bless America” and “America The Beautiful” will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!” [6]

Sometimes, I am left to wonder what President Jefferson would think about Michael Newdow’s lawsuits, about the work of the ACLU and Americans United. I think I found just what Jefferson might say on that matter. In 1781, he made the following statement:

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [7]



NOTES:

[1] Thomas Jefferson, personal letter to Danbury Baptist Association, Danbury, CT, January 1, 1802.

[2] Thomas Jefferson, Resolution for a Day of Fasting and Prayer made in the Virginia General Assembly, 1774.

[3] Thomas Jefferson, Proclamation Appointing a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, November 11, 1779.

[4] Thomas Jefferson, as quoted in The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson (NY: Random House, 1944), p.341.

[5] United States Supreme Court. 1985, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S., 38, 99.

[6] United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2002, Justice Fernandez dissenting, Newdow v. U.S. Congress et al, No. 00-16423.

[7] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781, p. 237.

Well Terri I have told you before but you won't listen.

It does not help to fulfill the Great Commission by getting in people's face and making them participate in religous activities or acknowledgements.

Like the good book says, each person must be fully persuaded in their own mind.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Terri I have told you before but you won't listen.

It does not help to fulfill the Great Commission by getting in people's face and making them participate in religous activities or acknowledgements.

Like the good book says, each person must be fully persuaded in their own mind.

How is one to be persuaded, Shermangeneral--without persuasion?

persuasion si coercion no

And when you have a captive audience i.e. schoolchildren there is a thin line between the two.

Rough rule of thumb, if someone feels coerced, they are.

Keli wrote:How is one to be persuaded, Shermangeneral--without persuasion?

Telling school pupils that if they don't this or that religious exercise that they wiil suffer consequences at the hands of school officials is not "persuasion". It is browbeating through threatening to use the power of the school to compel religious practice by the weak. And if you think that produces honest respect for religion or things holy, then you just don't know what you're talking about.

What you favor is not about persuasion any more than burning witches at the stake was about persuasion. What you favor is brutality by the strong against the weak to force a religious philosophy onto innocent and captive school pupils. And when you do that, as far as I'm conmcerned you can take your salvation and your Gods and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.

You probably thiink that wife beatings are about "persuasion" too, right?

Ziggy,

I do not think you are being fair. Voluntary prayer or the posting of ten commandments is not coercion. People do not have a constitutional right not to be offended.

I might suggest that people who are offended by voluntary prayer or the 10 commandments are a bit too easily offended. Everyone hears something they don't like (I make my students know all 27 amendments and the platform of the Populist Party of the 1890s--and they don't like it:)

I don't doubt that people treated you irresponsible many, many moons ago in the hollars (I truly don't) but I think that your fears are ungrounded today. No one is trying to establish a theocracy, and I can tell you that I believe the society would do well to acknowledge that God has truly blessed the United States, without coersing members within the society to sanction that sentiment.

BTW, what does wife beating have to do with anything?

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,
I do not think you are being fair. Voluntary prayer or the posting of ten commandments is not coercion. ?

It was when coercion I was in 1st grade, 5th grade & 9th grade. Hell, in 5th grade the principal had charts with students' names on every classroom door. On Monday morning everyone was told to tell the class that they either did or did no go to church the previous week. Those who said they did got a big gold star by their names. Those who said they didn't, got an "X" penciled in. I went to a Unitarian Church. But Miss Poling (who was an old-maid school principal and my 5th grade teacher to boot) didn't think that Unitarian was really a "church", so all I got were Xs.

People do not have a constitutional right not to be offended.

I think that students attending public schools under compulsory education laws have a right to not be indoctrinated in religion by the government run schools.

I might suggest that people who are offended by voluntary prayer or the 10 commandments are a bit too easily offended.

And I might suggest that "voluntary" is a nice littlle euphemism for "forced onto students who are unable to resist by authority of the public school system".

Everyone hears something they don't like (I make my students know all 27 amendments and the platform of the Populist Party of the 1890s--

That's all well and good if it's about the secular curriculum. But it's not well and good if it's indoctrination in theological religious philosophy.

and they don't like it

And some 4th and 5th graders don't like to learn their mulpitlication tables. So what's your point?

I don't doubt that people treated you irresponsible many, many moons ago in the hollars (I truly don't) but I think that your fears are ungrounded today.

Oh but I believe that you are wrong. The religionsists of today are just itching to take over the schools like they did in the 1950s when I was one of their unwilling victims. And I haven't forgotten it yet, and I'm not gonna' let my kids and grandkids forget how overbearing the goddamned religious indoctrinators can be.

No one is trying to establish a theocracy, ...................................

That's b.s. Pat Robertson and his cohorts in religious crimes are. And there's tens of millions of 'em all over the country- anxious to mandate their religious practices over any and all who are too weak and unempowered to resist. If they weren't, they would not hate free-thinkers and civil libertarians as they do.

and I can tell you that I believe the society would do well to acknowledge that God has truly blessed the United States, without coersing members within the society to sanction that sentiment.

Fine. Invite them to church and preach it all you want to. But don't insult us by calling religious indoctrination in the public schools "persuasion". It is nothing less than brainwashing for religious indoctrination under the threat of fine and imprisonment if parents keep their kids from school to avoid it.

BTW, what does wife beating have to do with anything.

Keli is the one who likened authoritarian public school religious indoctrination to "persuasion". I figured if he misunderstands what "persuasion" means in one "big me will make little you comply" instance, that he would in another.

Zig,

I really don't think that your experience is as indicative of the general evangelical Christian culture of either the United States or worldwide. As you know, Zig, I am every inch a fundamentalist/evangelical/Bible thumper and I am happy to declare myself with trusting in Jesus Christ and Him alone. As such, I've met many Bible-believing Christians who love Jesus and trust Him and do not act in the way you experienced.

I would object to putting children's names on the board based on their church attendance, and I am certain that of a hundred evangelicals that I know, there would not be more than two or three who would think that would be a good idea. I would object to it as children have no power over these things, and that it should not be the school's business to police the activities of children outside of school hours in the first place. However, that is a far cry from allowing a majority of students who happen to want to pray at a football game, or having a copy of the 10 commandments up on a courthouse lawn. Those 10 commandments certainly did influence our founders, and if a community decides they want it up then I don't see the prevailing interest of the courts to "protect" people from them.

If I were living in Turkey, a nation with an Islamic heritage, I would expect that I would tolerate them, rather than them removing what the majority of their people want such that I am not offended.

The 10 commandments certainly did influence our founders greatly, just as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes did. Why should the former be treated with greater discrimination than the latter? Should we neglect to allow public displays of quotes from Locke or Hobbes because it might offend people who do not view "life, liberty, and property" as sacrosanct or who believe that life in the "state of nature" would be "happy, civilized, and long?"

Zig, I get the sense that you're angry so I'll let this go. I'm truly sorry that people with a great message delivered it so poorly.

SheikBen wrote:Zig,
I really don't think that your experience is as indicative of the general evangelical Christian culture of either the United States or worldwide.

That evangelical culture is not as prevelent as it was 50 years ago- precisely because the 1st Amendment is now recognized as a part of the Constitution to be reckoned with.

As you know, Zig, I am every inch a fundamentalist/evangelical/Bible thumper and I am happy to declare myself with trusting in Jesus Christ and Him alone. As such, I've met many Bible-believing Christians who love Jesus and trust Him and do not act in the way you experienced.

I can believe that. And I like your general demeanor here, Sheik. But I can also believe that were you given the opportunity to use the public schools as agents of religious proselytization, that most of your fellow evangelical Christians would not hesitate to do so. And many of those of you who wouldn't would likely give aid and comfort to those who did. That you so castigate those who oppose public school religious indoctrination and defend the religious symbols you would have in the public schools tells me that you would rather see the balance tip in favor of the use of public school employees as heavy-handed religious teachers.

I would object to putting children's names on the board based on their church attendance, and I am certain that of a hundred evangelicals that I know, there would not be more than two or three who would think that would be a good idea.

And if two or three of every hundred evangelical public school teachers were allowed to get away with it that would be two or three too many.

I would object to it as children have no power over these things, and that it should not be the school's business to police the activities of children outside of school hours in the first place.

But religious zealots on a mission for their Gods often think they have a DUTY to police anyone they can for Christ. And if the rules that tell us that public schools cannot be agents of Christian proselytization were removed, these zealots would come out of the woodwork to try to assure that public school students received a "Christian" education.

However, that is a far cry from allowing a majority of students who happen to want to pray at a football game,

That's not what we're talking about here, and you know it. Students can pray at a football game as long as school personnel are not either the up front or behind the scenes instigators of such prayers.

or having a copy of the 10 commandments up on a courthouse lawn.

Speaking of those Commandments, if we were to post the six Commandments about how people ought to interact with other people and not post those about how people ought to interact with their Gods, I doubt that there would be even 1 percent of the opposition that exists as relates to posting them at public buildings as the sacred "10 Commandments". But the evangelical religionists want "all or nothing", apparently.

Those 10 commandments certainly did influence our founders, and if a community decides they want it up then I don't see the prevailing interest of the courts to "protect" people from them.

You misunderstand. It is not the Courts. It is the Constitution. The Courts serve only to remind us of that.

If I were living in Turkey, a nation with an Islamic heritage, I would expect that I would tolerate them, rather than them removing what the majority of their people want such that I am not offended.

Does Turkey have the equivalent of our Bill of Rights as an effective part of its Constitution?

The 10 commandments certainly did influence our founders greatly, just as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes did. Why should the former be treated with greater discrimination than the latter?

To what degree did Locke and Hobbes tell us how and how not to interact with the God of the Bible? That's what the 1st four Commandments are about.

Should we neglect to allow public displays of quotes from Locke or Hobbes because it might offend people who do not view "life, liberty, and property" as sacrosanct or who believe that life in the "state of nature" would be "happy, civilized, and long?"

Do those quotes represent religious precepts- in the context of the 1st Amendment?

Zig, I get the sense that you're angry so I'll let this go.

I do get angry when I see zealots like Keli and Cato try to resurrect what I've spent a lifetime resisting- the forcible imposition of religious doctrine onto youth who are effectively un-empowered to resist it. Very few young people have the support mechanism I had- a father who was himself a school principal who knew how the system worked- as well as a church home that focused on learning and spiritual empowerment over spiritually debilitating religious ignorance and superstitution.

I'm truly sorry that people with a great message delivered it so poorly.

Well, I never thought that "it" was such a great message. And the "enforcers" hated that I had the courage to say that. The difference between me and most of the other students was that I had the support system that allowed me to say that it was all so hokey. I had permission from my own church and parents to doubt the prevailing Bible belt gospel.

And that's part of the reason they constantly tried to show me that their Nazarene God was superior to my Unitarian God. And they kept the constant tug-of-war going until I was big enough to shrug it all off and think for myself. By 9th grade it all came to a head. I had refused to stand during morning prayer and flag pledge times. (This was soon after Senator Joe McCarthy had gotten his God inserted into the flag pledge). One teacher tried to paddle me for that, I resisted, and she sent me to the office. And I was suspended from school for refusing to accept a paddling. Then my father wrote a very long letter to the principal- but which I was never allowed to see. My Jr. High school principal was finally tired of my perpetual resistance and, after receiving that letter, finally told me something like (paraphrasing), "Ziggy, young man, have it your way. Your father is telling us to leave your soul alone- that you already have a strong spiritual mind. So we'll stop trying to civilize you with Biblical teachings. You are own your own with your un-christian Unitarian propaganda. God bless you."

It was perhaps the most liberating moment in my life up until then. I had finally whipped the bastards. All my years of resistance were finally vindicated. Three years later that principal looked away as he handed me my diploma. I'm convinced that by then he knew that my faith in my spirituality was stronger than his was in his.

Zig do you think a "kinder, gentler" message might have stirred up the gift of God in your soul without antagonizing you and hardening your heart in this regard?

The still, small voice?

http://www.mollfoto.com/tssv/

Remember, the abiding message from John 3:17 is that Jesus' mission was not to condemn but to save.

The Spirit and the Word bear witness to each other.

ziggy wrote: It was coercion when I was in 1st grade, 5th grade & 9th grade. Hell, in 5th grade the principal had charts with students' names on every classroom door. On Monday morning everyone was told to tell the class that they either did or did no go to church the previous week. Those who said they did got a big gold star by their names. Those who said they didn't, got an "X" penciled in. I went to a Unitarian Church. But Miss Poling (who was an old-maid school principal and my 5th grade teacher to boot) didn't think that Unitarian was really a "church", so all I got were Xs.

Why of course that was coercion.

But your “problem” was not “rooted” in religion or the religionists, ….. but was the fault of the School Board and the Superintendent for permitting/condoning such “acts” by a Principal.

GEEEZE, lots n’ lots of people can recite you a “bad experience” they had with a Teacher, ……. but they don’t blame the whole frigging world for it.

Ziggy, from what I have garnered from your postings over the years, me thinks your “problem” is more deep rooted than what you realize and/or are admitting to.

Let’s see now, 1st grade, 5th grade, 9th grade and post-12th grade …….. all seem to be “authority defiant years” for you. Only problem is, one doesn’t acquire a “defiant attitude” just because they entered 1st grade.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:I don't doubt that people treated you irresponsible many, many moons ago in the hollars (I truly don't) but I think that your fears are ungrounded today.

Oh but I believe that you are wrong. The religionsists of today are just itching to take over the schools like they did in the 1950s when I was one of their unwilling victims. And I haven't forgotten it yet, and I'm not gonna' let my kids and grandkids forget how overbearing the goddamned religious indoctrinators can be.

The religionists DID NOT have control of the schools in the 1950’s. Not in Braxton County that I know of. As a matter of fact, the only one I now know of or heard of, ….. is the one you mentioned. And I’m not sure I would even call that which you cited “religious control”.

GEEEZUS, in Elementary Schools in the 50’s, I see no difference in putting up a chart on a door to “mark” who went to church on Sunday or who brushed their teeth every morning. They had charts which they “marked” who came to school each day, didn’t they. Hells bells, they posted all sorts of things on walls, windows and doors in those day …… and no one paid much attention to them unless it was of interest to them. And besides, how many kids would stop to read what was posted on a classroom door, anyway? I can tell you, …… not very damn many.

Zigster, your “unwilling victim” comment says a lot about what your “problem” truly is. And that was not the first time you implied said on this Forum.

And Zig, if a "victim" is defined as "an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance", ...... please tell me, ....... just what were those "adverse circumstance" you suffered from by getting an "X" penciled in by your name on that "church chart"?

.

SamCogar wrote:But your “problem” was not “rooted” in religion or the religionists, ….. but was the fault of the School Board and the Superintendent for permitting/condoning such “acts” by a Principal.

And that's why it was and is necesaary to remind those school boards and Superintendents and Principals that the Bill of Rights was not suspended when they enter at the schoolhouse. And that's what Keli is compalining about at the beginning of this thread- that he and his fellow evangelicals are limited in the use they can make of public schools as agents of theological indoctrination.

shermangeneral wrote:Zig do you think a "kinder, gentler" message might have stirred up the gift of God in your soul without antagonizing you and hardening your heart in this regard?

The still, small voice?

http://www.mollfoto.com/tssv/

Remember, the abiding message from John 3:17 is that Jesus' mission was not to condemn but to save.

The Spirit and the Word bear witness to each other.

Sure, a "kindler, gentler message" would have been easier to swallow. And when you post about your thoughts about Biblical Christianity here, Sherm, it seems a more or less rational theory to at least consider as maybe of some worth.

But that is not what authoritarian religious indoctrination in public schools is about. It is about browbeating and threatening its subjects with anything from an "X" on the chart indicating the teacher's opinion that Unitarianism was not "Christian" enough to be considered a "church", to a teacher's paddle, to suspension from junior high school for failure to salute Joe MacCarthy's God, to eternal damnation in someone or other's version of hell. And that is all so contrary to the reality that supernatural gods are but contrivances of the human mind, as to render such browbeaten threats of retribution for failure to salute the doctrine as but one more mechanism of control of the minds of ones by others.

SamCogar wrote:Ziggy, from what I have garnered from your postings over the years, me thinks your “problem” is more deep rooted than what you realize and/or are admitting to.

Let’s see now, 1st grade, 5th grade, 9th grade and post-12th grade …….. all seem to be “authority defiant years” for you. Only problem is, one doesn’t acquire a “defiant attitude” just because they entered 1st grade.

You've never had a child in 1st or 5th or 9th or post-12th grade, did you, Sam? "Defiant attitudes" are a part of learning to have a free thinking mind. Otherwise one is but letting others do his or her thinking for one's self.

The religionists DID NOT have control of the schools in the 1950’s. Not in Braxton County that I know of.

What do you have to judge by? Or did you then not have enough freedom of thought to recognize and express doubt about the prevailing Biblical wisdom to the point of realizing the authoritarian effort that was put into indoctrinating you?

SamCogar wrote:Zigster, your “unwilling victim” comment says a lot about what your “problem” truly is. And that was not the first time you implied said on this Forum.

Sam, the world over is populated with unwiling victims of someone else's authoritarian control mechanism(s). Some people recognize and are honest enough to admit that, and some aren't.

Your attitudes about 1960s era war resistors, for example, seems to indicate that you favor personal submission over personal resistance, enforcement over resistance, and substiution to the "official" policy from on high in the place of one's personal best judgements- a free human mind and personal responsibility for one's self be damned.

In that regard you and the wannabe religious indoctrinators are cut from the same cloth- that of favoring authoritariansim over individualism, of demanding conformity over personal resistance.

You and your fellow both religious and political authoritarians can shove it.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Ziggy, from what I have garnered from your postings over the years, me thinks your “problem” is more deep rooted than what you realize and/or are admitting to.

Let’s see now, 1st grade, 5th grade, 9th grade and post-12th grade …….. all seem to be “authority defiant years” for you. Only problem is, one doesn’t acquire a “defiant attitude” just because they entered 1st grade.

You've never had a child in 1st or 5th or 9th or post-12th grade, did you, Sam? "Defiant attitudes" are a part of learning to have a free thinking mind. Otherwise one is but letting others do his or her thinking for one's self.

Zig, I doubt that you can find very many people who will agree with that assertion.

Excluding all the dope heads, crack heads and criminals that is.

ziggy wrote:

The religionists DID NOT have control of the schools in the 1950’s. Not in Braxton County that I know of.

What do you have to judge by? Or did you then not have enough freedom of thought to recognize and express doubt about the prevailing Biblical wisdom to the point of realizing the authoritarian effort that was put into indoctrinating you?

HA, I can see that you really have "lost it", Zigster.

I had one of the greatest "religious indoctrinators" in 3 or 4+ Counties a trying to indoctrinate me.

I couldn't get away from her ......... so I just ignored her.

GEEEZE, she washed my clothes, cooked most all my food .......... and I really wasn't ready to "leave home" until I graduated from school.

Oh, and ps Zigster, ..... iffen I could tolerate 20+ years of said "religious indoctrination", ...... which would have been 10,000% more than you ever had to endure, ....... and I suffered less effects from said than you did, ...... then something tells me my critique of you was right.

Your "problem" is more deep-rooted than you realize or want to admit.

cheers
cheers

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Zigster, your “unwilling victim” comment says a lot about what your “problem” truly is. And that was not the first time you implied said on this Forum.

Sam, the world over is populated with unwiling victims of someone else's authoritarian control mechanism(s). Some people recognize and are honest enough to admit that, and some aren't.

Your attitudes about 1960s era war resistors, for example, seems to indicate that you favor personal submission over personal resistance, enforcement over resistance, and substiution to the "official" policy from on high in the place of one's personal best judgements- a free human mind and personal responsibility for one's self be damned.

In that regard you and the wannabe religious indoctrinators are cut from the same cloth- that of favoring authoritariansim over individualism, of demanding conformity over personal resistance.

You and your fellow both religious and political authoritarians can shove it.

Well Zig, the American Society has never been perfect, ..... but it has still been "the best damn show in town".

But over the past 20+ years I can see it has been quickly changing to something more of "your liking".

So who knows, if it keeps on the same path and you live long enough, ....... you might get the opportunity ....... to taste what you have been sucking for.

Only by then, it will be too late, ......and you will have to "swallow it", ...... no matter whether you like the taste or not.

SamCogar wrote:Oh, and ps Zigster, ..... iffen I could tolerate 20+ years of said "religious indoctrination", ...... which would have been 10,000% more than you ever had to endure, ....... and I suffered less effects from said than you did, ...... then something tells me my critique of you was right.

Your "problem" is more deep-rooted than you realize or want to admit. cheers cheers

What problem? You guys and gals who couldn't make me bend over to your religious and politicial authoritarian whims are the one's with the problem. I kicked your asses for good back in the winter of 1965-66, and you're still smartin' over it.

And soon afterward I married Ms. Ziggy. But of course now THAT is still a problem, 41 years later. LOL. But she's still tryin'. She should have me "under control" just any day now. She's a hell of a lot tougher on her worst days than any of your religious and political allies in authoritarianism ever were on your or their best days.

So eat your hearts out.

SamCogar wrote:Well Zig, the American Society has never been perfect, ..... but it has still been "the best damn show in town".

But over the past 20+ years I can see it has been quickly changing to something more of "your liking".

Well Sam, you obviously don't have a clue about what my "liking" might be. Politically we've regressed back to about the political eras of guys like Joe McCarthy and Lyndon Johnson. And that ain't very much to my liking.

I didn't take the time to read all of the posts and I only skimmed over Keli's. The fact of the matter is neither side is right in this discussion, so let me make some comments to a few selected posters.

1. First, to Sherman and Keli in regard to what Jesus said. Neither of you have a clue about what Jesus said or didn't say, other than what someone has told you and the proof texts you use use out of context. Jesus did not ever force his vies on anyone. He placed them out there for all to hear. He informed them of the consequences of their choices. He then left the decision to eacha nde very individaul. Neither did Jesus cower in the corner, afraid he might offend someone, Sherman. He stood firm for his beliefs and really expects his followers to do the same.

2. To Keli - It is not the government's place to be involved in religion. Quite, frankly, I don't want to good sisters, or some pentacostal or premillinial preacher or liberal denominational preacher using a government facility and government blessing to teach my kids about God or even about religious history. That is my responsibility, not the government's.

3. To Ziggy, On the other side of the coin, one cannot deny anyone their right to practice their religion, solely because it is on property owned by the government. If a person chooses to pray while in a school or other government facility, they have every right to do so, under the 1st amendments establishment clause.

4. Frankly, if both sides of the arguement would quit trying to use the government to get their way, we would be far better off.

Cato

Cato wrote:I didn't take the time to read all of the posts and I only skimmed over Keli's. The fact of the matter is neither side is right in this discussion, so let me make some comments to a few selected posters.

1. First, to Sherman and Keli in regard to what Jesus said. Neither of you have a clue about what Jesus said or didn't say, other than what someone has told you and the proof texts you use use out of context. Jesus did not ever force his vies on anyone. He placed them out there for all to hear. He informed them of the consequences of their choices. He then left the decision to eacha nde very individaul. Neither did Jesus cower in the corner, afraid he might offend someone, Sherman. He stood firm for his beliefs and really expects his followers to do the same.

2. To Keli - It is not the government's place to be involved in religion. Quite, frankly, I don't want to good sisters, or some pentacostal or premillinial preacher or liberal denominational preacher using a government facility and government blessing to teach my kids about God or even about religious history. That is my responsibility, not the government's.

3. To Ziggy, On the other side of the coin, one cannot deny anyone their right to practice their religion, solely because it is on property owned by the government. If a person chooses to pray while in a school or other government facility, they have every right to do so, under the 1st amendments establishment clause.
Cato

OK. I agree,

But "choosing" to pray, and being told by school authoprities that "now is the tiome to pray and here is what you are to say" are not at all the same thing. And those who insist on equating compulsion with "persuasion" and coercion with "chooses" and demands with "voluntary" do not want to engage in an honest discussion about it.

4. Frankly, if both sides of the arguement would quit trying to use the government to get their way, we would be far better off.

Don't forget, though, that public schools ARE a part of the government- with the full authority and power of the government at their disposal. So what would you have parents do when they learn that their child's public school is doing the very religious activities that you say you don't want them doing do your children- and they continue to despite parent's protests?

ziggy wrote:
Don't forget, though, that public schools ARE a part of the government- with the full authority and power of the government at their disposal. So what would you have parents do when they learn that their child's public school is doing the very religious activities that you say you don't want them doing do your children- and they continue to despite parent's protests?

Parents have remedies in the courts if a schools system is compelling their child to participate in a religious activity to which the choose not to be a party to. However, on the other side of the coin, it is equally appalling and wrong to prevent a student or group of students who choose to exercise their right to practice their religion, solely becasue it offends another.

As I siad the catch is that both sides ofthe arguement want their way and they are using the government to force their views ont he other. Both sides are equally wrong for what they are doing. What is so often forget by both the secular humanist and evangelical christian is the both sides pay taxes and both share int he ownership of government property. For one side to alienate the other for the sake of control is not what liberty is about.

Cato wrote:Parents have remedies in the courts if a schools system is compelling their child to participate in a religious activity to which the choose not to be a party to. However, on the other side of the coin, it is equally appalling and wrong to prevent a student or group of students who choose to exercise their right to practice their religion, solely becasue it offends another.

As I siad the catch is that both sides ofthe arguement want their way and they are using the government to force their views ont he other. Both sides are equally wrong for what they are doing. What is so often forget by both the secular humanist and evangelical christian is the both sides pay taxes and both share int he ownership of government property. For one side to alienate the other for the sake of control is not what liberty is about.

Looking at these two paragraphs together, you seem to suggest that, while legal remebies are available, that it is "wrong" for parents to use the legal remedies available to them. If the "evangelical christians" didn't first compel students to participate in school sponsored religious activities, there would be no issue on which to base legal challenges.

Peculiar, isn't it, that when one tries to get down to the nuts and bolts of Bill of Rights and religion related issues, ole' Keli bails out- even on the threads he started.

He likes to preach the word, but wants no part of actually discussing or defending the words he preaches.

Zig,

If you really want to get into the Bill of Rights, the first place to start would be the first word of the 1st amendment "Congress." The courts have made the word congress mean the whole idea of national, state, and local government, and that is ridiculous (it started in 1925). The fact is that a local school board is not synonymous with the US Congress.

What you are giving power to is not the Constitution at all but how the courts have added to its meaning. Today you like the way that they have done so, but tomorrow you may not.