A Call for Consistency

[Mountain Man]

...the U.S. Constitution [...] prohibits the government from activity in religious contexts.

Actually, it doesn't. It prohibits the government from creating laws that enforce or prohibit the exercise of religion, but in all other ways, the government is free to engage in religious activity, such as opening a session of Congress with prayer, proclaiming that certain days will be officially set aside for the purpose of religious observance:

Source: Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/...hes/thanks.htm

© Copyright Original Source

...or using the resources of government to spread the gospel of Jesus:

Source: George Washington's Speech to the Delaware Chiefs

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention..."

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_...elaware_Chiefs

© Copyright Original Source

The common notion that the US government is supposed to be agnostic towards religion is not reflected in our history or traditions.

[carpedm9587]

Let's clear up some things first. Enforcing law so that:

a) mothers carry children to term
b) fathers pay child support
c) parents raise children till they are adult
etc

is not slavery. It's not slavery because it's duty of theirs, that they can't just get rid of because 'I don't want it!!!! '

So, there is no slavery, and libtarded position you think we should compromise with is blown to pieces!

Despite the somewhat rude response, Demi, your list falls apart from the perspective of the other side because they do not see the embryo as a human life. From their perspective, that means the government is making personal decisions about their body - something over which they should have sovereign control. From their perspective, what the right is asking is the equivalent of a law that says, "if you have a <insert biological mass here> in your body, it is legally required that you leave it alone." I suspect, if anyone were to argue for that law for you, for any biological mass OTHER than an embryo, you would be at the front of the line screaming, "government intrusion into personal choices!!!"

And that is the problem: each person's insistence that the other side is "evil" because they won't look at the starting place of the other side. The left refuses to see that the right's argument about the preciousness of life is reasonable, given that they believe it IS a life. The right refuses to see that the left's argument about the sovereignty of each person over their own body is reasonable, given that they believe it is a NOT life. So neither side is trying to be immoral - but each side insists the other side is, indeed, being immoral. Both sides are entrenched, and neither side is willing to attempt to find an alternative solution to a legal one.

And more children die...

[demi-conservative]

Despite the somewhat rude response, Demi, your list falls apart from the perspective of the other side because they do not see the embryo as a human life.

So what?

And that is the problem each person's insistence that the other side is "evil" because they won't look at the starting place of the other side. The left refuses to see that the right's argument about the preciousness of life is reasonable, given that they believe it IS a life. The left refuses to see that the left's argument about the sovereignty of each person over their own body is reasonable, given that they believe it is a NOT life.

Which is why lots of mothers need to be talked into it, then feel massive guilt afterwards.

So neither side is tryingf to be immoral

Like I said on top, so what? One side is immoral, doesn't matter whether they're trying or not.

And more children die...

Because libs changed the law to allow killing of babies, and prevent it from being changed back.

But it's okay! You get one point for saying 'more children die' again, also 5 points for magic solution of yours that "will" "dramatically" work!!!

[carpedm9587]

Actually, it doesn't. It prohibits the government from creating laws that enforce or prohibit the exercise of religion, but in all other ways, the government is free to engage in religious activity, such as opening a session of Congress with prayer, proclaiming that certain days will be officially set aside for the purpose of religious observance:

Source: Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/...hes/thanks.htm

© Copyright Original Source

...or using the resources of government to spread the gospel of Jesus:

Source: George Washington's Speech to the Delaware Chiefs

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention..."

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_...elaware_Chiefs

© Copyright Original Source

The common notion that the US government is supposed to be agnostic towards religion is not reflected in our history or traditions.

MM, you are citing things outside our Constitution to try to defend a position that should be based on the Constitution itself. "Tradition" is not a basis for law, except in so far as "precendence" is used in the legal system. Article VI explicitly prohibits using any form of religious test to determine suitability for government office. And your focus on the First Amendment is on the first half of the sentence; the ENTIRE sentence is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Many SCOTUS decisions have been around that second half, especially the question of whether the government taking a position on one religion or another (e.g., Commandments in a government courthouse) is interfering in the "free exercise" of a person's religion. The argument is a simple one: if a person from a non-Christian background comes to a court that is clearly advertising Christianity (or any other religion), can they be assured of a fair judgment? If they believe they are not, would that not then cause the person to feel "constrained" in the exercise of their religion? SCOTUS has, so far, come down definitively on the side of "yes," and such things are prohibited.

As for prayer, we are definitely not going to agree there. It has been traditional for Congress to open with prayer, and that is not likely to change in the near future. But I suspect it will eventually, for the same reason that a teacher is not permitted to lead a class in prayer in a public school: it divides and take a position on religion using government resources. As an atheist, to have a government body, in their capacity as a government body, to essentially support "theism" over "atheism" is unacceptable. It is as unacceptable to me as I suspect it would be for many here to have to listen to a Muslim chant at the start of a Congressional session, or a reading from the Satanic Bible.

If a period of silence is introduced, for each to use as they see fit, you would never hear me complain. The same is true of "In God We Trust" on our money. Leaving it off does not deny god, but having it on denies the beliefs of (a growing) part of the population. It requires us to handle currency that professes a belief we do not hold. Again, our feelings on it are similar to how you would probably feel if the slogan on the money was imprinted with the Muslim Shahada. The quote was added as part of the great communism scare in the mid 20th century, as was the reference to god in the pledge of allegiance. It does not deny god for the government to be neutral on the issue. If you want to write "In God We Trust" on every check you write, or have it emblazoned on the check itself, you should have every right to do so. But the money we all use as members of the country should be silent on the question of religions and gods, IMO.

That being said, there are some battles I am willing to fight (e.g., for unborn children) and others I am not (getting prayer out of our legislatures and "In God We Trust" off our money). In the list of issues I feel passionate about, the latter rises to roughly the same level as my need to keep my sock drawer orderly. I believe what I have just expressed - but beyond expressing it here, I'm not interested in spending any more energy on it.

[carpedm9587]

So what?

Which is why lots of mothers need to be talked into it, then feel massive guilt afterwards.

Like I said on top, so what? One side is immoral, doesn't matter whether they're trying or not.

Because libs changed the law to allow killing of babies, and prevent it from being changed back.

But it's okay! You get one point for saying 'more children die' again, also 5 points for magic solution of yours that "will" "dramatically" work!!!

I rest my case, Demi.

and I love points

Have a good one...

[Mountain Man]

MM, you are citing things outside our Constitution to try to defend a position that should be based on the Constitution itself.

If you think the beliefs, words, and actions of the men who wrote the Constitution can not be used to help us interpret it then there's really no point to this conversation.

[Cow Poke]

As for prayer, we are definitely not going to agree there. It has been traditional for Congress to open with prayer, and that is not likely to change in the near future. But I suspect it will eventually, for the same reason that a teacher is not permitted to lead a class in prayer in a public school: it divides and take a position on religion using government resources. As an atheist, to have a government body, in their capacity as a government body, to essentially support "theism" over "atheism" is unacceptable. It is as unacceptable to me as I suspect it would be for many here to have to listen to a Muslim chant at the start of a Congressional session, or a reading from the Satanic Bible.

So. in effect, the government body is supporting atheism or agnosticism over Christianity. This is why there are so many Christian and Private schools, and so many parents are homeschooling. So, should the government pay for the students to attend the atheist/agnostic public school system, and not pay for the other kids to attend the schools of their choice? After all, many schools are making accommodations for Muslim kids to have prayer rooms and allowing them to leave class to pray at the prescribed times. Are you opposed to this?

[demi-conservative]

I rest my case, Demi.

and I love points

Have a good one...

Okay, I will enjoy having last word!!!

You start from silly point, like you're only one here who understands how progs with consciences justify abortion to themselves 'slavery, war against women, unfair!!!!' Protip: they've screamed "my body!!!! patriarchy!!!! freedom!!!! parasite1!!" so many years, we know what kind of BS they believe.

Then you paint magical picture. If both sides can see things from perspective of other (as if conservatives can't see selfish prog position) then then we can have compromise, and "will" help to reduce problem "dramatically". How will this happen? Who knows, point is to spread blame around, so that 'it's also conservatives' fault'.

[demi-conservative]

Many SCOTUS decisions have been around that second half, especially the question of whether the government taking a position on one religion or another (e.g., Commandments in a government courthouse) is interfering in the "free exercise" of a person's religion. The argument is a simple one: if a person from a non-Christian background comes to a court that is clearly advertising Christianity (or any other religion), can they be assured of a fair judgment? If they believe they are not, would that not then cause the person to feel "constrained" in the exercise of their religion? SCOTUS has, so far, come down definitively on the side of "yes," and such things are prohibited.

They actually said that??? What a big joke.

[carpedm9587]

Okay, I will enjoy having last word!!!

You start from silly point, like you're only one here who understands how progs with consciences justify abortion to themselves 'slavery, war against women, unfair!!!!' Protip: they've screamed "my body!!!! patriarchy!!!! freedom!!!! parasite1!!" so many years, we know what kind of BS they believe.

Then you paint magical picture. If both sides can see things from perspective of other (as if conservatives can't see selfish prog position) then then we can have compromise, and "will" help to reduce problem "dramatically". How will this happen? Who knows, point is to spread blame around, so that 'it's also conservatives' fault'.

AbsoLUTEly, you can have the last word...

[Cow Poke]

AbsoLUTEly, you can have the last word...

You should see the look I get from my wife when I say that to her.

[demi-conservative]

If you think the beliefs, words, and actions of the men who wrote the Constitution can not be used to help us interpret it then there's really no point to this conversation.

They shouldn't!!! Except for letter of Jefferson for Reynolds, and cases after that!

[carpedm9587]

So. in effect, the government body is supporting atheism or agnosticism over Christianity. This is why there are so many Christian and Private schools, and so many parents are homeschooling. So, should the government pay for the students to attend the atheist/agnostic public school system, and not pay for the other kids to attend the schools of their choice? After all, many schools are making accommodations for Muslim kids to have prayer rooms and allowing them to leave class to pray at the prescribed times. Are you opposed to this?

No - the government is remaining mute. NOT saying anything about any religion or any god does not say "there is no god." It simply says nothing. A period of silence before each session lets each member exercise their faith as they see fit, prayer, meditation, etc. The same in a school. Likewise, the public school system is not atheist or agnostic (oer it shouldn't be); it is mute (or it should be). I would take as much exception to a teacher prosletizing students with an atheist or agnostic agenda as I would to a Christian or Muslim or Judaic agenda. And discussion of religions is not prohibited, if it is in the cotext of a compartive religion class, or a history of literature class, or a history of the world that focuses on when and how each religion originated.

What is NOT ok is for anyone to promote their own belief (atheist, agnostic, or theistic) using government resources or as a representative of a government or government-funded institution. So - to be clear, things I think SHOULD be permitted include:

- comparative religion classes
- study of religious books as literature
- a student privately praying at the start of a class, or in the school cafeteria.
- room set aside for any group to use as a "quiet space" as they see fit (meditation, prayer, even a religious ritual, etc.)
- a student sitting at a table in front of the school before or after school with religious tracts for distribution (as long as they are passive, only addressing students that come to THEM).
- a student wearing clothing with religious symbolism (I used to have a jean jacket I wore to school with a big Px symbol on the back and "Jesus Saves" embroidered around it. Made it myself )
- a teacher or parent hosting a prayer service before or after school time in that "quiet room" (THAT really irritates my liberal friends! )
- excused dismissal for religious observances
- religious music played by the chorus or school band (as long as it is not in the context of ritual and is simply another form of music)

Things I think SHOULD NOT be permitted include:

- the principal leading a student assembly with a prayer (students are required to attend - not appropriate)
- a teacher requiring a moment of prayer at the start of class (same thing)
- ANYONE actively prosletyzing ANY belief system on school grounds. (students have to be there, and active prosletyzing means they may not be able to avoid it if they do not wish to be so exposed)
- Any school official sponsoring prayer services or rituals during school hours

You get the idea. Government resources should never be used to promote a religion (including atheism or agnosticism) in a context where people have no choice but to comply or participate or be subjected to it.

The money issue is a harder thing. From the "use" side, allowing a student to use the money in a school of their choice does not violate any of my prohibitions listed above, so you would think, "why not?" After all, only the student is affected and they are going where they want to go.

The problem isn't on the use side - it is on the suppply side. It means some part of my tax dollars aere being used to pay for the religious education of a belief system I do not agree with. Would you be comfortable if a satanic school was opened, and your tax dollars were used to fund students attending this school and be indoctrinated into those beliefs? Or if an explicitly atheistic school was opened, and your tax dollars were used to indoctrinate children into atheism?

For that reason, I am not in favor of a voucher program. I think our schools, as government institutions, should be mum on systems of religious belief, and people should take responsibility for themselves if they want their children indoctrinated in one belief system or another. Public schools should be focused on basic knowledge (3 Rs) and the skills a child needs to get a job and function in society. It should be mute on the issue of gods and belief systems.

[carpedm9587]

You should see the look I get from my wife when I say that to her.

Mine too...

[carpedm9587]

If you think the beliefs, words, and actions of the men who wrote the Constitution can not be used to help us interpret it then there's really no point to this conversation.

That is not what I said, MM, or at least not what I meant. I'll assume I simply was not very clear. My bad.

Certainly, if there is a statement in the Constitution and it is unclear and we want to know what the original Founding Fathers thought about it to help us understand, referring to surrounding documents by the same people is a meaningful exercise. What you are trying to do is different. You are trying to take something that is NOT in the Constitution, and argue that the Founding Father's "intended X" because of their personal beliefs. THAT is not an appropriate application of the writings of these men. Using it to understand what is IN the Constitution is fair game. Using it to "read between the lines" about something that is NOT in the Constitution is not.