Jefferson's reply...
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

detailed analysis...
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

I know all three are long, but please take 10-15 minutes to read all 3 and then post your thoughts.

Simon, as I've said before, I welcome your opinions.

It is my belief that somebody who cannot debate his own viewpoint probably doesn't really have his own viewpoint, but has mindlessly adopted somebody elses without much thought.

It is that thought that I welcome here, whether I happen to agree with it or not.

Simon, I would tend to agree with you about the human rights thing, as that is actually where I was going with this. I'm quite impressed that you picked up on that so quickly.

The thing I found to be very key about the 3rd link is the mention of application of the wall, in fact, the original text from Jefferson mentions the "wall of separation between church and state." Wall specifically is always truncated off that quote, allowing for an incorrect interpretation of it.

If you think about any type of wall, whether it be the Berlin wall, the wall around a school yard or prison, or the proposed wall along the border with Mexico, it is about protecting one side from the other. In this case the correct context is that the wall of separation of church and state is to protect the church from the government, not the other way around. Today's application of that quote is to protect the government, and in fact the populace, from the church, which is not intended.

I tend to think for the protection of all religion and government should be kept apart. Learning from my history I see the fear of reprisal from legal checks and balances work well to human politicians in line. Also, nothing has changed with people in the last 800 years to indicate absolute power no longer tends to make madmen out of people world wide.

"Quite honestly I feel that I am losing my rights to practice free religion. Whether you have the same religious beliefs as I do or not is irrelevant, you should not be able to tell me I cannot pray in public, in school, in a government building, etc. To do so is a violation of my rights."

Your rights or privilege?

------------------
oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fastymz:
Your rights or privilege?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sigtauenus:
Rights, Ron, rights. Its all about rights these days. Seems the status quo got shifted, now some are gaining and some are losing, and it doesn't always follow who's in the majority either.

---

"Quite honestly I feel that I am losing my rights to practice free religion. Whether you have the same religious beliefs as I do or not is irrelevant, you should not be able to tell me I cannot pray in public, in school, in a government building, etc. To do so is a violation of my rights."

Where does it say you that it is YOUR RIGHT to stop a school class room,or in government building to stop any one and make them pray?
Who's RIGHTS supersede the others rights? You can pray all you want on your OWN time or in quite to yourself. But to force others to pray with you is that really your rights? I have my own believes on this issue. That'll I'll share later,but for now I need to see where this is going.

------------------
oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

I agree on most, I admit I do need to read more about secular humanists, and that I readily bought into the argument presented about the Supreme Court decision involving them.

I think that if we want things to be a certain way, we need to change the constitution to reflect that. I'm not saying I want that to happen, but saying that needs to happen if we want things to be different than the way the constitution specifies.

My contention is that people are making arguments based on something that is not constitutional and not intended even remotely if you use other documents such as Jefferson's letters. What I'm saying is, if you want the 10 commandments out of all the town halls and courtrooms, etc, that's fine if you feel that way, but to do so via the argument that its unconstitional is incorrect.

I think if you want to say there should be absolutely no religous involvement in government, fine, make the appropriate constitutional changes to reflect that.

But to argue the the current consitition or Jefferson's letters support what we are seeing in recent lawsuits and decisions is patently wrong.

Whether or not I should or should not have a certain right to something to begin with is irrelevant, it was given to us, and I feel that numerous decisions are being made that deny many people of their rights.

When you look at the Danbury Baptist's letter, they were concerned about some future change restricting their ability to practice their religion, and Jefferson's letter was to reassure them that the government would not interfere.

Today, if you tell a kid that he cannot pray in school, or read the bible in his free time in school, you are denying his practice of religion, which he has a constitutional right to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fastymz:
Where does it say you that it is YOUR RIGHT to stop a school class room,or in government building to stop any one and make them pray?
Who's RIGHTS supersede the others rights? You can pray all you want on your OWN time or in quite to yourself. But to force others to pray with you is that really your rights? I have my own believes on this issue. That'll I'll share later,but for now I need to see where this is going.

---

Who is talking about forcing anything? The only one being forced right now is me NOT being allowed to pray. This is about the free excercise of religion.

I have a friend who is a school teacher and she told me that just last week a girl came up to her and asked her to pray with her about something going on at home. The principle found out about this and told the teacher this was not to happen again if she wanted to keep her job.

So, apparently, no am I am not allowed to pray even if somebody else asks me to pray with them. This situation is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

"The only one being forced right now is me NOT being allowed to pray. This is about the free excercise of religion."

Where can't you pray at? Can't you pray any time any where now? Even if it's quitly to yourself?

------------------
oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fastymz:
Where can't you pray at?

---

Virginia Beach public schools.

I do like a good debate. I think as long as all party's involved keep an open mind. They will learn something either about others or them selfs if not learning more about the issue.

------------------
oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

HOOD HACKERS DELIGHT!
My Pics

http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=4405882

------------------
oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fastymz:
Or the Teachers can't pray aloud with them?

---

Apparently not. The child asked the teacher to pray with her and the teacher did and then got in trouble.

So what if some other kid is buddhist or even atheist. The teacher isn't showing favoritism, the kid asked her pray with her and she accomodated.

Hmm, wonder what would happen if a wiccan kid came up and asked the teacher to pray, and the teacher said "I'm sorry, but I cannot pray to your God." Would that be discrimination against the wiccan kid if the teacher had been willing to pray with a Christian kid?

So the way I read it the constitution calls for freedom OF religion - not freedom FROM religion.

Why am I the only one who sees that?

Tracy

Religious freedom, Religious uprisings, Religious intolerance seem to be key in defining issues of any given country.

Yesteray, at Advance Auto Parts, buying a brake bleeder, a helpful young man waited on me. He was a good sales person, not the stereotype that one hears mentioned on line. But....as I paid, he tried to hand me a small booklet. Asked him what it was, and he started in, extolling his religion. Told him I had a God of my own, and he asked me if it was *****? Told him as politely as one could, that it was not for him to inquire.

He waited on me once before, telling me then, that he was a Cuban who came ashore 2 years prior. Asked him, yesterday, if he could do that in Cuba and, of course, got an emphatic no. So then, asked him if being in the US gave him the right to force his religion on someone else, who may not want to hear it. Got a pained look from him-end of conversation.

What he could have learned was, had I chosen to call the company headquarters, that religious freedom does not extend to do what he did while waiting on customers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DidgeyTrucker:
A few years ago when all this was becoming big news, I took the time to look for and read the constitution. The phrase "separation of church and state is not in the constitution. I did find the statement "Congress shall make no law....prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)"

So the way I read it the constitution calls freedom OF religion - not freedom FROM religion.

Why am I the only one who sees that?

Tracy

---

I'd end up with a ticket for public indecency , then in jail for hurting no one just because people are offended somehow by my naked body. So we all live with pressure from other religions and our public institutions try to find some safe ground of not letting any one encroach too much.