Replies to post #2145 on The Free Zone Board

[pat34lee]

Re: dpb5 - Church and State

< There is a specificity to the United States Constitution that demanded the seperation of Church and State. To me, that means that what the 'STATE' offers to the citizens should in no way include religion. A simple thought, yet potent as it relates to the 'intent' of our forefathers. >

That is true, but the intent was not to keep religion out of our everyday lives. It was to keep government from intruding into peoples' religious lives. Faith was regarded as sacred, and to be practiced freely.

< Much like "FREEDOM OF SPEECH", "FREEDOM OF RELIGION" was one of the very building blocks of this Great United States. Although the founding fathers intended to be true to the word of the intent, it is my opinion that the ensuing decades since 'Independence' did indeed allow a convoluting of the original intent of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. >

I agree. That is how we got public schools, social security and welfare, and how the federal government plans to provide for healthcare for its citizens. All are no more than socialist policies, and if not expressly forbidden by the constitution, they are not part of the enumerated powers of government.

I can agree that government should not teach religion. Our government has no place teaching our children anything. Schools were community based until the last century or so, and should be returned to local control. There is a good site to check on this:
http://www.sepschool.org

[mikkj]

RE: dpb5?Dar I Interject?

First, Hi!

As regards your post, I agree. The problem lies in the christian perception of the founding fathers intent. They try to forget that many of the founding fathers themselves, or their ancestors, left a country with a state mandated religion. Many left, at least in part, to escape that domination that was BOTH religious and political. They wanted the government to have NO congress with ANY religion. Another misconception is that the founding fathers were christian, when in fact, most were deists. After all, they don't mention Jesus, they mention GOD - there's a difference.

Based on these facts, they would agree that any religious statements at "official" government functions would imply a de facto endorsement of that religion. Many christians point out that we use "God" in many government funtions, but again. that's "God", and NOT Jesus. There ARE other beliefs which use the term "God", though they apparently think not. Since public schools are an extension of the government, then no "official" prayer can be said at school functions, including football games. The "majority rules" argument does not apply here, since it would violate a basic premise of the constitution. All of this is just smokescreen anyway, since everyone knows that kids can pray between classes, after school, and at football games, just not "officially". But that would not allow them to proslytize with government sanctions, so they protest that they are being denied the freedom of their faith. I wonder how the early christians, sneaking into the catacombs to pray, would think of that?

An interesting tactic that they use is to state that they are being "discriminated" against, even though no other faith can pray "officially" either. It always gives me a chuckle that christians, who claim to be in the majority of the population, and have almost all of the politicians and judges claim their faith, can claim discrimination with a staight face.

Oh well, I have learned that logic and religion don't play well together.

Nice to have a new "face" on the board.