Opinons Please--Church-State division?

by patio34 44 Replies latest social current

• 

  patio34

  Wow, I was gone for awhile and this thread really got interesting. Yerusalim, you make very good points that I happen to disagree with. Elsewhere, you make, imo, better points that I mostly agree with. Except for the statement that Mr. Newdow is too confrontational--I think he's pretty gutsy. Most people just go along with the program and not rock the boat, but he's going against the majority of public opinion.

  The point that a lot of religious people seem to be making is that there will be a major infringement on their rights or not be able to have churches, etc. It seems they're intentionally trying to inflame the situation by mis-stating the issue. The issue is separation of government and religion. Not to prohibit religion and the practice thereof. Is that what's called a red herring? To assert that people couldn't even say "God bless you" is irrelevant and in no way connected to government.

  Yerusalim asks if the phrase "In God we trust" should be removed from money. Imo, of course it should. But since this country has been so religious for so long, it takes time to really separate church and state.

  It matters not whether the constitution was aiming to protect religion or protect government, imo. It cuts both ways--separation of the two.

  Pat
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Nor does hiring chaplains make an establishment OF religion. As I've stated time and again, both Congressional Chaplain's and Military Chaplains have been challenged in court and the issue was decided. Justice Clark's position makes one point quite clear, the government shouldn't interfere with the free exercise of religion, he also seems to favor the impact religion has had on government. The T.J. quote was refering to state religions like the Anglican Church in England.

  Elsewhere, my last word on the subject is

  NA NA DA BOO BOO

  I'm right, you're wrong, I'm big, you're little, etc etc etc
• 

  patio34

  LOL, Yerusalim,

  You make a good point about chaplains in the military being comparable to this situation. But I still don't think tax money should go at the rate of $148,000/year though just for some clergyman to offer up prayer for congress. I imagine they do something else, but still don't think they should be paid by tax $$. Just my opinion.

  Pat
• 

  Elsewhere

  The point that a lot of religious people seem to be making is that there will be a major infringement on their rights or not be able to have churches, etc. It seems they're intentionally trying to inflame the situation by mis-stating the issue.

  You hit the nail on the head! In the style of the WTS, the religious community is misstating the issue to make it seem like an attack on religion. It is NOT! If anything, Newdow's actions, if successful, will further PROTECT religious freedom by preventing the government from mandating religion.

  [Moons Yerusalyim] ( | )
• 

  patio34

  Thanks Elsewhere. I've seen allegations that kids won't be allowed to pray, free speech won't be allowed, it'll be wrong to mention god, etc. etc. It's being misrepresented deliberately imo in order to cry "persecution!" Just as you pointed out, in the same manner as WT always playing the persecution card and refusing to be reasonable about it.

  Pat
• 

  Elsewhere

  I've seen the same... very sickening to see the blatant lies and deceptions perpetrated by the "holy". Perhaps some of the religious community is inclined to use Spiritual Warfare too.
• 

  Solace

  NA NA NA NA BOO BOO?

  tehehe
• 

  bigboi

  By implementing a Chaplin, congress is not making an establishment of A religion, they are making an establishment of religion. Establishing a religious activity (Chaplin services) is making an establishment of religion. I notice some of you think I am talking about freedom FROM religion. I have not made this statement. I am simply saying that a person cannot enjoy true free e xercise of religion if the state is mandating religion. When the state stays neutral in religious matters, everyone is ensured the right to free exercise of religion. By implementing a Chaplin, congress is breaking that neutrality.

  I don't agree. I think that the Representatives are just acting upon their right to have certain religious counsel if they so choose. I tend to think of the first Amendment as guaranteeing that the Government will not dictate to citizens who, what, when, where and why they ought to worship. This gurantee does not mean that the religious leaders even in an official capacity can't adhere to some of those beliefs or even seek the counsel of some of their spritiual leaders. Acting in this way does not intrude upon the ppls religious freedom.
• 

  YERU2

  To add a bit of fuel to the debate, the Congressional Chaplains undergo a security check, etc, something NOT imposed nor LEGAL to impose upon the local clergy with whom the Congressmen might otherwise seek counsel and aid. Hiring a Chaplain allows for the free exercise of the Congress.
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  My tax money should not go to supporting any religion period, if they want to pay a chaplain, then they should pay it out of they're pay checks, not mine.