Pat,on the flip side the moral majority has tried to legislate morality.They seem to think there is only room for Christianity in the US.And this is in the Constitution.."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".As far as I can see the form of religion is not specified.
The term seperation of church and state was coined by Jefferson.No it is not included in the Dec of Ind.It was used in a response to why not establish a National Day of fasting and thanksgiving.It was his feeling that it was not the place of Congress or the Executive Branch to establish a religion.
Okay,found the letter:
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Judge...I agree with you and your premise but the freedom of espression and freedom of speech is a far cry from establishment of religion.
If a kid want to say a prayer in school he may be expelled in todays society....thats a violation of freedom of speech and expression.
It hardly passes as establishing a religion....just another way for liberals to twist the laws to fit their agenda which is to abolish religion altogether.
If a kid want to say a prayer in school he may be expelled in todays society....thats a violation of freedom of speech and expression.
It hardly passes as establishing a religion....just another way for liberals to twist the laws to fit their agenda which is to abolish religion altogether.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
Judge...I agree with you and your premise but the freedom of espression and freedom of speech is a far cry from establishment of religion.
If a kid want to say a prayer in school he may be expelled in todays society....thats a violation of freedom of speech and expression.
It hardly passes as establishing a religion....just another way for liberals to twist the laws to fit their agenda which is to abolish religion altogether.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Religion aside, do you really think there is freedom of speech in school? Not when the teach tells ya to shut the heck up. In college yeah, but in grade school there is no freedom of speech for the kids.
But if a kid wants to say a slient prayer or prays without disturbing others then I certainly see no problem with that. But if the school institutionalizes having a prayer session then I just think that's wrong and it is an establishment of religion. Practically speaking it can also cause unnecessary tension between people with different beliefs, or no beliefs at all. There is a time and place for organized religion and public schools is not the time or place.
Judge...I agree with you and your premise but the freedom of espression and freedom of speech is a far cry from establishment of religion.
If a kid want to say a prayer in school he may be expelled in todays society....thats a violation of freedom of speech and expression.
It hardly passes as establishing a religion....just another way for liberals to twist the laws to fit their agenda which is to abolish religion altogether.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Religion aside, do you really think there is freedom of speech in school? Not when the teach tells ya to shut the heck up. In college yeah, but in grade school there is no freedom of speech for the kids.
But if a kid wants to say a slient prayer or prays without disturbing others then I certainly see no problem with that. But if the school institutionalizes having a prayer session then I just think that's wrong and it is an establishment of religion. Practically speaking it can also cause unnecessary tension between people with different beliefs, or no beliefs at all. There is a time and place for organized religion and public schools is not the time or place.
I don't get why time and effort must be expanded on schools or anywhere else to allow someone to be religious. There is nothing wrong with being religious and saying a quiet prayer, but why must you do it when you get to school or work??? I mean if it means that much to you, get up 3 minutes earlier and do it at home. We all know prayer, if it truly works, is much more needed on the roads of this country than in the offices!!!
This country was founded on the freedom of religion and the freedom of having the government declare or enforce a chosen religion, regardless of the majority. That is among our most important principles and to think that some people are upset about that is amazing. Tell me all you want about how founding fathers and everyone else was religious, I will point out that almost everyone that was religious yet a revered person treated their religion with a sense of privacy. Today's preachers and religious leaders aren't like what they used to be, they no longer seem to trust people to do the right thing on their own. They want laws and restrictions to make people have no choice but to do what they think is right. And that is a very poor reflection on their ability to lead and to get people that supposedly follow them to act in accordance with what they say. If religion was as important to the fabric of this country that you hear people from the churches say now, it would never come to this. Maybe, just maybe, religion is optional in people's lives as it always should be.
This country was founded on the freedom of religion and the freedom of having the government declare or enforce a chosen religion, regardless of the majority. That is among our most important principles and to think that some people are upset about that is amazing. Tell me all you want about how founding fathers and everyone else was religious, I will point out that almost everyone that was religious yet a revered person treated their religion with a sense of privacy. Today's preachers and religious leaders aren't like what they used to be, they no longer seem to trust people to do the right thing on their own. They want laws and restrictions to make people have no choice but to do what they think is right. And that is a very poor reflection on their ability to lead and to get people that supposedly follow them to act in accordance with what they say. If religion was as important to the fabric of this country that you hear people from the churches say now, it would never come to this. Maybe, just maybe, religion is optional in people's lives as it always should be.
Pat,I have to agree things have gone a little overboard.I see no problem with Nativity sets on state or federal grounds,or if a child wants to pray before school,on his own,or if he wants to say "under God during the pledge of allegiance."Once again in many instances,common sense has gone out the window.
A wise person IMHO may espouse a predominantly liberal or predominantly conservative viewpoint while questioning the extremes of each. I lean to the left but certainly do not accept or embrace all liberal views nor do I denigrate those leaning to the right who also keep an open mind.
I see the political spectrum in the analogy of a football gridiron layed out from left to right. Most of our population, IMO would feel safest with the politicos playing between the twenties where a miscue or mistake they might make is not as critical; the moderate position if you will. The entire playbook can be used and there are more options and ideas available for use if you follow this analogy. Idealogy remains broad. If the politicians score from here it is because they drew up a good play.
Then you've got the red zones where play is more dangerous; options more limited. On offense inside the twenty on the left you have the true liberals. Their playbook has shrunk. The same would apply inside the twenty on the right with hard core conservatives.
Inside the five on the left you have the radical left. Inside the five on the right you have conservative reactionaries. This is the true danger zone on both ends of the field. This is where there is little playbook left and where there is nothing but a narrow minded, force fed agenda; a power play only, if you continue to follow the analogy. Those who play offense here would use brute force, tunnel vision with little wiggle room for creativity; and total disregard for the opposition and its views.
On both ends of the field they plow ahead trampling the rights of all opposed to their narrow minded ground game. Nothing matters now except to score their points. In this analogy this is a game in which I DO NOT want either team to stuff the ball down my throat in this manner.
This is also where I would do all I can on defense to stop these guys on both ends of the field. It is interesting to note that some conservatives now feel it is necessary to stop Mr. Bush before he c****es the goal line on the right. He has thrown out the moderate, "compassionate" conservative playbook which he promised to use and which enabled him to get the ball in the first place. He is well into the red zone on the right and he must be stopped.
Now I did not mention religion but don't think I have to. That is another game where it would serve all of us well to stop the extremes on both ends of the field. World History anybody?
I see the political spectrum in the analogy of a football gridiron layed out from left to right. Most of our population, IMO would feel safest with the politicos playing between the twenties where a miscue or mistake they might make is not as critical; the moderate position if you will. The entire playbook can be used and there are more options and ideas available for use if you follow this analogy. Idealogy remains broad. If the politicians score from here it is because they drew up a good play.
Then you've got the red zones where play is more dangerous; options more limited. On offense inside the twenty on the left you have the true liberals. Their playbook has shrunk. The same would apply inside the twenty on the right with hard core conservatives.
Inside the five on the left you have the radical left. Inside the five on the right you have conservative reactionaries. This is the true danger zone on both ends of the field. This is where there is little playbook left and where there is nothing but a narrow minded, force fed agenda; a power play only, if you continue to follow the analogy. Those who play offense here would use brute force, tunnel vision with little wiggle room for creativity; and total disregard for the opposition and its views.
On both ends of the field they plow ahead trampling the rights of all opposed to their narrow minded ground game. Nothing matters now except to score their points. In this analogy this is a game in which I DO NOT want either team to stuff the ball down my throat in this manner.
This is also where I would do all I can on defense to stop these guys on both ends of the field. It is interesting to note that some conservatives now feel it is necessary to stop Mr. Bush before he c****es the goal line on the right. He has thrown out the moderate, "compassionate" conservative playbook which he promised to use and which enabled him to get the ball in the first place. He is well into the red zone on the right and he must be stopped.
Now I did not mention religion but don't think I have to. That is another game where it would serve all of us well to stop the extremes on both ends of the field. World History anybody?
Mr Jones.Agreed.It seems{hope I'm wrong}that the number of people whose views gravitate towards the middle are becoming less and less.Also which concerns me more is our inability to listen to other points of view,and give these points of view some thought before writing them off.Which is why I like threads like this.No name calling,just the exchange of ideas.
Mr. Jones your football analogy is fine..just one question...Why is the left always moving the goal post?...Why is it that in your game of football a highschool team is not allowed to say a team prayer before a game?
Expeling a child from school for praying is compassionate Lliberalism???
Stripping a judge from his judgeship for having the 10 commandments in his courthouse for the last 50 years is not extreme??
Expeling a child from school for praying is compassionate Lliberalism???
Stripping a judge from his judgeship for having the 10 commandments in his courthouse for the last 50 years is not extreme??
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is interesting to note that some conservatives now feel it is necessary to stop Mr. Bush before he c****es the goal line on the right. He has thrown out the moderate, "compassionate" conservative playbook which he promised to use and which enabled him to get the ball in the first place. He is well into the red zone on the right and he must be stopped.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might want to get rid of your own prejudice before you look at the facts on Bush.
Billion dollars to Africa for AIDS victims and research...(How much money has Canada and France given?)
Amnesty for criminal aliens in this country right now.
No child left behind act ( which the whores in the dem. party won't allow through because of vouchers and have been bought by teachers union)
Tax breaks for people who work and obey the law like myself...Now thats compassionate
By the way liberals shitting on the institution of marriage is not extreme???
And your saying Bush must be stopped???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might want to get rid of your own prejudice before you look at the facts on Bush.
Billion dollars to Africa for AIDS victims and research...(How much money has Canada and France given?)
Amnesty for criminal aliens in this country right now.
No child left behind act ( which the whores in the dem. party won't allow through because of vouchers and have been bought by teachers union)
Tax breaks for people who work and obey the law like myself...Now thats compassionate
By the way liberals shitting on the institution of marriage is not extreme???
And your saying Bush must be stopped???
Patriot,
Above I wrote "I lean to the left but certainly don't embrace all liberal views".
What you have done is rather clearly pointed out exactly what I meant by that statement.
As for President Bush, I don't have time to get into a debate at this time. I'm not trying to evade one and I'll be back later to do so.
But this left leaning Democrat "Nascar Dad," must take some time to handicap the drivers at the Rock.
One last thing though. I did briefy coach high school football here in the South. We prayed before a game and if I was doing it now we would do the same. See y'all later.
Above I wrote "I lean to the left but certainly don't embrace all liberal views".
What you have done is rather clearly pointed out exactly what I meant by that statement.
As for President Bush, I don't have time to get into a debate at this time. I'm not trying to evade one and I'll be back later to do so.
But this left leaning Democrat "Nascar Dad," must take some time to handicap the drivers at the Rock.
One last thing though. I did briefy coach high school football here in the South. We prayed before a game and if I was doing it now we would do the same. See y'all later.
BTW, I first used that football field analogy while teaching World History to tenth graders.
Most of those kids had no clue as to what a liberal or conservative is. This analogy worked well. I would then move the ball on a chalk board while explaining to the best of my ability what the political viewpoint might be at various points on the field.
I remained very unbiased when I did so about twenty years ago. Was probably playing on about the 45 yard line on the left those days myself. Thanks to Bush, Ive moved the ball a little further to the left now.
Most of those kids had no clue as to what a liberal or conservative is. This analogy worked well. I would then move the ball on a chalk board while explaining to the best of my ability what the political viewpoint might be at various points on the field.
I remained very unbiased when I did so about twenty years ago. Was probably playing on about the 45 yard line on the left those days myself. Thanks to Bush, Ive moved the ball a little further to the left now.
Did you move the goal post too,when explaining the lefts position?
Heres is good example on libs twist the premises of the constitution.
Conservatives definition of 'cruel and unusaual punishment.....cutting some ones balls off.
A libs definition of the same would be, cold syrup for an inmates pancakes.
Now not being a judge, I would think that the framers of the constitution did not have the syrup analogy in mind.
hey, pick me a winner in nascar.
Heres is good example on libs twist the premises of the constitution.
Conservatives definition of 'cruel and unusaual punishment.....cutting some ones balls off.
A libs definition of the same would be, cold syrup for an inmates pancakes.
Now not being a judge, I would think that the framers of the constitution did not have the syrup analogy in mind.
hey, pick me a winner in nascar.
