Separation of Church and State?

SheikBen wrote: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).

No, it started with the 14th Amendment, if not sooner.

Then why was Gitlow v New York in 1925 such a landmark case in "selective incorporation?" If the 14th amendment had the effect you claim, then why between 1868 and 1925 wasn't there judicial application?

There is such a thing as "due process" that does not involve the Supreme Court getting involved in matters of "life, liberty, and property." Liberty referred to someone being free or incarcerated/enslaved, and had nothing to do with kids praying in school.

Liberty referred to someone being free or incarcerated/enslaved, and had nothing to do with kids praying in school.

So you don't think children being forced to pray in school, over their objections and/or that of their parents, were not being denied liberty?
Would you feel the same way if your children were forced to face Mecca and pray to allah while in school?

ziggy wrote:
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.

I may not have done the best job at explaining myself, so we'll try again. First, I am professing christian and I have put alot of thought into this, both from a constitutional basis and on a personal basis. I have come to the conclusion that no public school system, in fact no, government entity should be sponsoring religious activities. I haven't come tot hat conclusion based on the Constitution, I've come to that conclusion based almost entirely on personal beliefs.

On the constitutional side of the arguement, I'm uncertain where the line is to be drawn exactly. Whent he US Constitution with the Bill of Rights was ratified it was constitutional for states to have a state sponsored religion. As Sheik said the very first word of the Bill of Rights stated "Congress", which was pretty much the limiting factor.

As time went along we have the 14th amendment which was the first attempt at equal rights. A very poor attempt it was, by the way. The question is, does the 14th amendment take the word "congress" out of the equation, thus making laws that were 80 years earlier constitutional now unconstitutional or does the 14th simply state that while all rights stay the same, no citizen can be denied those rights. I think the latter is true, but the courts have ruled otherwise. I think they are wrong in their rulings, however.

That being said, religion belongs in the hands of the individaul. While I don't think the government has any business in religion, where I draw the line is when the government or a governmental official prevents someone from exercising their right to practice the free exercise of their beliefs. Just as I don't think the government has the right to conduct religious activities, I also don't believe the government has the right to silence or deny someone the right to pray to whatever god they choose.

The problem today is both sides of the arguement what their way and they will darn will get it, by using the government to force their views on others. That is what I think is so sad and so evil.

Stephanie wrote:

Liberty referred to someone being free or incarcerated/enslaved, and had nothing to do with kids praying in school.

So you don't think children being forced to pray in school, over their objections and/or that of their parents, were not being denied liberty?
Would you feel the same way if your children were forced to face Mecca and pray to allah while in school?

Hi Stephanie,

If I were in a Muslim country and at school there was a moment dedicated for prayer that my child was not forced to partake in, I would not have such a problem with it.

There are banners on public property wishing me a happy Eid when Ramadan ends. I don't mind it in the least. There is a star and crescent at the Christkindlmart in downtown Chicago and I don't mind that either.

I have actual tolerance, Stephnaie. I do not mind the majority in any area practicing their religions (and I hold to my relationship with Jesus Christ very tightly). I do not expect the Spaniards to be Lutherans, the French to be religious at all, and the Turks to be Christians. I do not expect the Mexicans to forgoe Las Posadas in the streets, or the Israelis to stop their celebration of Purim, or the Saudis to enjoy an evening feast, because I am offended.

I would expect there to be 10 commandments in West Virginia areas, where such things are approved by a majority, and then there to be no such thing in Massachusettes, where such things are vilified. I have no desire to force the Massachusettes legislature to put up religious monuments, and yet people from Massachusettes want to tell local folks in West Virginia what they can and cannot have on public lands.

I do not approve of what happens at the public schools, but rather than trying to tell them what they can or cannot do, I am exercising my freedom of choice and teaching my children at home. I realize that my position is the minority one on evolution, absolute morality, and the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ. So I am doing justice to the alternative that is my wife and my worldview.

Even taking faith out of it, many have come to the conclusion that public education has become more babysitting and sophomoric than it needs to be, so people have decided it is better to educate their children at home. I do not hear much from homeschooling parents about how public education needs to change, but rather on how much they are happy that they have found an alternative.

We are not talking about children being forced to pray any more than we are talking about kids being forced to pray to receive Jesus Christ; we are talking about monuments on courthouse lawns (with NO enforcement whatsoever) and optional prayers. If those optional prayers exclude students, they do so no more than selecting teams for kickball or choosing a science fair victor.

Incidentally, Stephanie, I do not want my children's religious education entrusted in the hands of public educators; however, if they want to offer a brief prayer, or mention the 10 commandments in an approving way, I don't see the problem at all.

And if I do, I have to ask whether in this democracy if I am the exception or the rule, and if I am the exception, I am to act accordingly.

SheikBen wrote:Incidentally, Stephanie, I do not want my children's religious education entrusted in the hands of public educators; however, if they want to offer a brief prayer, or mention the 10 commandments in an approving way, I don't see the problem at all.

And if I do, I have to ask whether in this democracy if I am the exception or the rule, and if I am the exception, I am to act accordingly.

I disagree. How you or I "act" should have nothing to do with whether we are part of a majority or of a minority. If it does, then individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the equal protections under the law are meaningless.

I got no dog in this hunt, I'm just curious. What law is being broken if a prayer is said in school?

Liberty referred to someone being free or incarcerated/enslaved, and had nothing to do with kids praying in school.

Children praying in school is ok, if that's what they wish to do. However, in the case of children attending public schools under compulsory attendance laws, teacher led prayer is another matter.

I do consider it to be a violation of the civil liberties of children when they are placed in situations where they are likely to be singled out for not participating. The children from religious homes or of devout faith don't require a teacher to lead them in prayer. It's that simple.

Aaron, I don't think any law is being broken when a person prays in public school. I do think the Constituitonal rights of children are violated when they are lead in group prayer in school. I don't think children should be placed in that situation.

Stephanie wrote:
Aaron, I don't think any law is being broken when a person prays in public school. I do think the Constituitonal rights of children are violated when they are lead in group prayer in school. I don't think children should be placed in that situation.

If no laws are broken then how is it unconstitutional under the equal protection clause? I read somewhere today that a law has to be broken for the equal protection clause to take effect. I have it saved on my computer at work. I'll post a link tomorrow.

Aaron wrote:I got no dog in this hunt, I'm just curious. What law is being broken if a prayer is said in school?

Who said a law was broken?

If the government operated public school requires students to participate in particular religious exercises, then it has violated the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution- and as amended by the 14th Amendment.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I got no dog in this hunt, I'm just curious. What law is being broken if a prayer is said in school?

Who said a law was broken?

If the government operated public school requires students to participate in particular religious exercises, then it has violated the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution- and as amended by the 14th Amendment.

How so? The first amendment only applies to the federal government, not the states and the 14th Amendment states...

14th Amendment
Section 1
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So how does the 14th to apply if no law is broken?

The 14th Amendment applies because the Courts say it does. And the Constitution appoints the Courts to settle questions of the law and of the Constitution.

So if Wiki is good enough for you, as you told Stephanie, then the Supreme Court of the United States is good enough for me.

ziggy wrote:The 14th Amendment applies because the Courts say it does. And the Constitution appoints the Courts to settle questions of the law and of the Constitution.

So if Wiki is good enough for you, as you told Stephanie, then the Supreme Court of the United States is good enough for me.

I don't suppose you could link to a case, could you? After all, I did post my link to back up what I was saying.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:The 14th Amendment applies because the Courts say it does. And the Constitution appoints the Courts to settle questions of the law and of the Constitution.

So if Wiki is good enough for you, as you told Stephanie, then the Supreme Court of the United States is good enough for me.

I don't suppose you could link to a case, could you? After all, I did post my link to back up what I was saying.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1] was the seminal United States Supreme Court case in Establishment Clause law in the United States. In addition to incorporating the Establishment Clause (applying it to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), Everson was the beginning of a powerful separationist drive by the Court, during which many programs and practices given government sanction were found to have religious purposes or effects and thus invalidated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education