Post 41

Two recent events poignantly illustrate the unmasked hostility some in this nation have toward God. They insist that they are motivated by adherence to lofty constitutional principles, but are they?

First, the ACLU has demanded that the Breen Elementary School in Rocklin, Calif., remove a "God Bless America" sign from its marquee. The sign was placed in front of the school after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

An ACLU staff attorney called the message a "clear violation of the California and United States constitutions, as well as the California Education Code. "It must be replaced immediately," she ordered.

The ACLU argued that the message divides students along religious lines, and that school officials are hurting and isolating students of "minority faiths" when they should be supporting the values of pluralism and tolerance.

Apart from the "heady" constitutional issues, let me just ask a question. Could all those who really believe that any students are being harmed by such a message raise their hands? Can anyone contend that with a straight face?

And just what minority faiths might the exalted ACLU be referring to? The sign says "God Bless America." It does not say, "The Triune God Blesses America." It does not say "Jesus Christ Blesses America."

The only students who could conceivably be offended would be atheists or agnostics. If they don't believe, it sure shouldn't offend them that a Being they don't believe in supports their country. And even if there are some of those poor souls, how many of them do you suppose have heightened sensibilities about such innocuous and neutral references to God?

I'm not finished. You must also explain to me how that sign is anti-pluralistic or intolerant. It doesn't impugn non-believers in any way. It doesn't say, "Shun those who don't believe in God or America."

The thrust of the sign's message is patriotism, not religion. The school put the sign up after the attacks to display patriotism. President Bush ends almost every speech with "God Bless America," as have numerous presidents preceding him – from the White

House, no less. Should government officials be prohibited from making such statements?

The insanity continues. The Madison Wisconsin School Board adopted a policy barring recitation of the pledge of allegiance by schoolchildren. This was after the state legislature passed a law in September requiring Wisconsin school children either to say the pledge or have the national anthem played daily.

But here's the kicker. One school board member admitted that the board was primarily concerned with the pledge's reference to "one nation under God." "What I wanted to do was eliminate that which would be repugnant to those who believe very strongly and would have their personal and political beliefs violated by group coercion." It's the same old song, is it not?

So, instead of allowing the schools to make their choice between the pledge and the anthem, they issued an edict requiring that only an instrumental version of the national anthem be played.

Thankfully, the parents in both places are fed up, and they're fighting back. Some 250 people, many dressed in red, white and blue gathered in Rocklin, Calif., to support the message. Similarly, hundreds of parents protested the Madison School Board's injudicious action.

Let's call a spade a spade here. I'm quite supportive of the First Amendment's prohibition of state-sponsored religions, but these cases don't even come close. These references to God, especially such religion-neutral and denomination-neutral expressions are part of our country's heritage and enjoy the full imprimatur of our founding fathers.

We're all aware of the many and long-standing references to God in our founding documents and governmental institutions (Supreme Court, Congress, etc.) and so we know the framers were not offended by them. I came across another one that even preceded the Declaration of Independence.

In a Declaration on the Necessity for Taking Up Arms against the British, Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson made multiple references to God as well as penning patriotic themes. "Our cause is just. Our union is perfect ... We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the divine favor toward us, that His providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy until we were grown up to our present strength ... we most solemnly, before God and the world ... exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator has bestowed upon us. ...

I could continue, but I certainly don't want to offend anyone.

David Limbaugh

Oct 13th, 2001

Gannymeade: pc2two <<Two recent events poignantly illustrate the unmasked hostility some in this nation have toward God.>>

even if correct within any significant portion of the population, is it not their right ot believe so?

<<They insist that they are motivated by adherence to lofty constitutional principles, but are they?>>

generally, they are motivated by their personal beliefs. it just so happens that the constitution agrees with them regarding the role of the state in religion and vice versa. there is absolutely no recognition in the constitution of any appropriate expression of government regarding religious beliefs.

I must confess that I find it amusing to hear the same people who generally argue adamantly that where the constitution is silent, there is no authority for the government to act being the same ones who argue that government can act in the absence of explicit constitutional authority when it suits them to have the government endorsing particular religious views.

especially when analyzed in the contest of a constitution that very clearly says that there shall be no establishment of religion by the federal government. exactly what has happened to "strict constructionism" here?

suddenly the government is absolved from the requirement of direct constitutional authority to engage in certain types of behavior.

<<Could all those who really believe that any students are being harmed by such a message raise their hands?>>

the author has obviously never been a religious minority in public schools. and utterly forgets that it is often devoutly religious parents who object to their kids being subected to classroom theology. as was the case in the texas football invocation case. it was two particularly religious families [mormon and catholic] who filed suit against the school on religious grounds for the school's broadcast of a prayer at a school function.

<<And just what minority faiths might the exalted ACLU be referring to? The sign says "God Bless America." It does not say, "The Triune God Blesses America." It does not say "Jesus Christ Blesses America.">>

to start off with, the significant US population of hindus [along with other religious groups who do not believe in one solitary god, triune or otherwise.

and then there are the those who do not believe in god at all, not to mention the religionsists who object to the version of god being preached.

<<The only students who could conceivably be offended would be atheists or agnostics.>>

this is patently false, as I have already mentioned the fact that it is often devoutly religious parents who object to the religion to which their children are being subjected in school.

<<And even if there are some of those poor souls, how many of them do you suppose have heightened sensibilities about such innocuous and neutral references to God?>>

a question that is utterly irrelevant to the determination of whether the speech in question violates the constitution.

btschmidt: They should just change the sign to read "Bless America". Let the reader decide who or what is doing the blessing. The meaning is the same either way.

Gannymeade: if the intent and meaning is the same, in this, then they are clearly prohibited context,

btschmidt: I would love to see that tried in a court of law. No mention of a deity. No endorsement by the government. No more noxious than a smiley face and have a nice day.

Yeah take it to court.

acerimusdux: btschmidt <<They should just change the sign to read "Bless America".>>

It will sound awful funny to have that missing beat in the song though...

btschmidt: acerimusdux <<It will sound awful funny to have that missing beat in the song though...>>

Yeah but just imagine the harmony.

Federalist answers Ganny’s points.

federalist01: It's obvious that the Constitution does not prohibit "God Bless America"

The ACLU is not pro-constitution, they are anti- judeo-christianity.

When was the last time you heard the ACLU object to federal funding for an exhibit like "Piss Christ"? They don't oppose any negative religious images, even if federally funded, they only object to any positive mention.

Mentioning God does not establish religion. What particular sect is establihsed by mentioning God? None.

federalist01: "God Bless America" is not prohibited by the constitution, neither is "Bless America" perhaps you'd prefer the Soviet constitution, officially atheist.

victor_hmv: pc2two <<The only students who could conceivably be offended would be atheists or agnostics. If they don't believe, it sure shouldn't offend them that a Being they don't believe in supports their country.>>

I disagree. I'm an agnostic, and religious displays don't offend me in the least. I don't see that a nativity scene on the lawn of the town hall or "God Bless America" posted in a public building is any infringement on my right to worship, or not, as I please.

Other than that - well said!

In fact, there is very much a precident for public religious displays - one of the first things congress did after it was created was to appoint an offical chaplain, paid out of the U.S. Treasury.

And as far as whining about "putting religious practices into law", remember where the philosphical/ethical premises for liberal democracy come from - the Judeo-Christian belief that God gave man Free Will and the right to choose to reject or accept His path.

And this is the reason for the Left's antipathy toward religion - if you destroy the philosophical/ethical basis for our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, then taking it away can be rationalized. If you do not have a God-given right to choose your own path, then why shouldn't the State dictate you have an obligation to act for "the Good of Society"? It can then be rationalized that you are property of the State. There's a connection there. Think about it.

pc2two: federalist <<The ACLU is not pro-constitution, they are anti- judeo-christianity.>>

I disagree to a point. I see the ACLU as pro-anal interpretation of the 1st amendment of the constitution. I agree they are not pro-constitution in general, but do support a

very specific rendition of what they believe the 1st amendment is to mean, which happens to include the dissolvement of any form of the founding Judeo-Christian principles or guidelines, that just so happend helped form this country into the 1 lone super-power, it has become.

IMHO

…and freak responds to pc2two

freak5646: Sirs,

its REAL simple. if it is government property, then it can have no G_d.

your relationship with G_d is private. pray keep it that way.

Matthew 6:5ff

who is it offending? me, for one.

freak5646: pc2two <<Let's call a spade a spade here. I'm quite supportive of the First Amendment's prohibition of state-sponsored religions, but these cases don't even come close. These references to God, especially such religion-neutral and denomination-neutral expressions are part of our country's heritage and enjoy the full imprimatur of our founding fathers.>>

the presence of the term in its common usage on government property, currency, or in official proclamation, is de facto acknowledgement on the part of the government of a faith in the existence thereof. this is contrary to my position, and to that of other non-theists.

and as to what the Founding Fathers wanted, well, gee, they weren't familiar with atheism or agnosticism, at least, not in the way that it is becoming more and more common. but I think they would have adapted.

try to imagine, for a second, Sir, if the Pledge of Allegience, for example, said "One Nation, Under Baphomet" -- mightn't that offend you?

its the same.

freak5646: btschmidt << They should just change the sign to read "Bless America"

Let the reader decide who or what is doing the blessing. The meaning is the same either way.>>

POST OF THE YEAR!!!!

way to go, BT.

texaswildcat agrees with btschmidt.

texaswildkat: Great idea!

freak5646: (to pc2two) it is NOT a crusade against Judeo-Christianity. it is an effort to keep the government and religion separate. totally. as was intended by the Founding Fathers.

sheesh

jkstraw_01 invokes the oft-used, loaded-with-hidden-meaning one word comment, made famous by Gannymeade in his response to the nomination for Post of the Year.

jkstraw_01: Oy.

richpo64: freak <<it is an effort to keep the government and religion separate. totally. as was intended by the Founding Fathers.>>

I've got news for you freako, that was never their intention, and, be honest, you know it.

freak5646: It WAS their intentioin. I am honest, Rich. and I have done the research.

what part of "a wall of separation between church and state" -- Jefferson's words -- confuses you?

richpo64: If you're honest, that means you've read the writings of ALL the founders. Speration of Church and State means that the government shall not support one religion over another, or create a National religion. In basically ALL the writings of the founders, they expected the nation to be ruled by CHRISTIAN prinicples.

Spare me you're dumb ass remarks.

freak5646: gee, then why, in a treaty with Libya, did President Washington and the US Senate (which approves treaties), STATE that the US Government was in NO way based on Christian principles?

hmmm?

hmmmm?

GFY, you third rate asslicking redneck inbred.

JayC28: Of course Jefferson's letter was written to assure the Danbury Baptist Convention that the state would not interfere with their right to practice their religion.

Sorry, but that one line, 'wall of separation' has been bastardized from everybody from the Supreme Court to organizations like the ACLU and zealots like Barry Lyn.

freak5646: no, Jay, the line has not been bastardized. that's the flip side of my argument. the Baptists get protected, as do I. as does dobber. everyone gets treated the same. and the ONLY way for the government to do that is to STAY THE FUCK OUT OF IT. completely.

federalist01: The US Constitution protects my right to freely exercise my religion. It does not limit this right to private venues. You're calling for establishment of atheism as the official doctrine of the government, which would be unconstitutional. I find that offensive.

JayC28: Freak, spare me. Putting 'God Bless America' on a school sign in no way shape or form infringes on ANY of your rights as an American. NOT ONE. It doesnt require you to do anything, it doesnt require you to adhere to any kind of rules, and it does not implicity favor ONE specific religion over another. It is not legislation, it is not a formal declaration by the school board. It is not binding in any way.

So give me a break already. Sorry but I am tired of people making mountains out of fucking molehills. We have much more important things to be concerned about than one school in a town with a population of 30,000 putting a sign that has more of a PATRIOTIC context than a religious one.

And yes, that phrase has been bastardized to the point where people dont even know where the hell it came from and that it is actually written in the 1st amendment.

freak5646: no, Fed, I am NOT advocating that the govt take an atheist position. that would, indeed, be unconstitutional. the govt should take NO POSITION AT ALL.

there is a difference.

federalist01: freak <<it is NOT a crusade against Judeo-Christianity. it is an effort to keep the government and religion separate. totally. as was intended by the Founding Fathers.>>

"Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be entrusted on any other foundation than religious principle, not any government secure which is not supported by moral habits.... Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." - Daniel Webster

"We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." – James Madison

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." - George Washington

We Report, You Decide... *S*

federalist01: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always stay in government."

(Jan 1, 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists) - Thomas Jefferson

freak5646: Jay, maybe you are having difficuulty with this since you are NOT a member of a minority religion/philosophy.

it somes across as a slap in the face. every time. you may not understand, but it would be nice if you would trust me. it is a slap in the face.

one of the things that becomes a requirement for me is not participating fully in the patriotic rituals. for example, I have to drop certain parts of the Pledge of Allegiance. tell me, Jay, why was it necessary to add "Under G_d" to the pledge? it happened in the 50s. why? why was it necessary to add "In G_d We Trust" to the currency? again, the 50s. why didn't the Founding Fathers do it if they felt it was necessary?

the answer? because it ISN'T. because the idea was for a religion neutral government. that's all I want. that's all that the Founding Fathers gauranteed in the 1st.

do we have more important IMMEDIATE concerns? yes.

but how long do we have to wait? how many more years do I get slapped in the face with the majority religion on government property? in government practice? how long? try putting yourself in my shoes for a minute, Jay.

"Separation of Church and State" is written in the 1st Amendment? WHERE? no. its in the other writings of Jefferson.

federalist01: freak <<its REAL simple. if it is government property, then it can have no G_d.>>

This is advocacy of atheism as official policy. This is unconstitutional, not neutral.

freak5646:

1) daniel webster -- not a Founding Father, ergo, irrelevant.

2) James Madison -- talking about self government. ergo, an irrelevant quote.

3) Washington -- says NOTHING about the Constitution, says NOTHING about the freedom of religion that he spoke and wrote about more directly in other instances. there is NOTHING in my position that precludes our leaders from acting on their ethics and/or morality, which may well be religioiusly derived. ergo, Washington's statement says NOTHING about the argument at hand.

you report, we point out the irrelevancy.

federalist01: If you say so bud! *LOL*

freak5646: I don't have the quote with me, but in his "Bill Establishing Religious Liberty in Virginia" of 1787, Jefferson stated that no one should be burndened in any way, goods, person, time, anything, in any way made to support in any way a religious observance, ritual, institution, or anything else. and that he should, in effect, not be deprived of his standing in the community.

but if we are going to go with Christian principles, how about Matthew 6:5?

try that one.

freak5646: (to federalist) bullshit. there is a difference between government neutrality, wherein government docs, message boards, signs, coinage, bodies, whatever, don't MENTION G_d, and govt atheism, where the same docs and entities state that there is no G_d.

and it IS simple. but apparently you are more so.

federalist01: It is simple. If you say that a government facility is open for use by non-religious organizations, but closed to religious organizations, then you are by definition discriminating against the religious, which is unconstitutional.

freak5646: I didn't say, at ANY point, that the facility wasn't open for use by religious organizations under the same rules and conditions as it is open to non-religious organizations.

That is a different argument, and you will find me on the side of the religious organizations, on it.

blarry2000: (to federalist) I don't think the first amendment erected a wall between church and State. I think the first amendment made it very clear who has the legal authority to administer government in America.

I think the first amendment state it very clearly what another part of the constitution means- "Insurrection and rebellion" against the state is illegal and are punishable crimes.

The right to "Peaceably assemble" can not be considered a crime by the government or any legal authority, estabnlished by the federal or states government bodies.

I think the first amendment is an act of restraint upon both unlawful,church or State, practices.

Gannymeade: (to federalist) it's not that simple... but I'm not terribly surprised if you haven't appreciated the complexity of this paticular area of constitutional law.

laservisor: (to federalist) Yes, "In God we trust"

RELIGION, n.

A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

"What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.

"Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."

"Then why do you not become an atheist?"

"Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism."

"In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."

From "Devil's Dictionary," Ambrose Bierce

federalist01: freak <<I didn't say, at ANY point, that the facility wasn't open for use by religious organizations under the same rules and conditions as it is open to non-religious organizations.>>

You did say you want to prohibit certain speech by those organizations while using the facility, as well as their free exercise rights, both are anti-first amendment ideas. You said "its REAL simple. if it is government property, then it can have no G_d."

federalist01: (to Gannymeade) It would be a nice change if once in a while you came up with an argument instead of just spewing childish insults all the time. I'm not interested in your drivel.

freak5646: ok, obviously I did not communicate how this should work. my bad.

if they want to have a club or organization, just like every other club or organization, where people can get together for the purpose of that club -- FCA comes to mind -- and they want to pray or discuss G_d, that's fine. great. no problem. they go by the same rules as FFA and FHA and FBLA.

but putting "G_d Bless America" on the school sign -- paid for and lit by MY tax dollars -- or a prayer at a non-FCA event, like a football game -- using electricity and equipment paid for by MY TAX dollars -- setting aside time in an official school function, like graduation or a game, or whatever -- these are defacto positions taken by the administration/faculty/institution as agent(s) of the state with regard to religion. THOSE are unConstitutional.

there is a difference, fed.

federalist01: What particular religion is established by "God Bless America"?

freak5646: "G_d Bless America" is not an official anthem. in and of itself, which is how you have phrased the question, it is irrelevant. the problem arises when the phrase is put in a place, like a school billboard or sign, wherein it takes up space provided by the state.

federalist01: No, I asked a simple question. The statement "God Bless America" in any context, not just on a school sign, establishes which particular religion?

jkstraw_01: What if you don't believe in God?

freak5646: your question does not address the issue. the statement endorses, but does not establish, theism. but the 1st does not apply except to places like school signs.

federalist01: Theism is a concept, it is not a religion. So we agree, "God Bless America" does not establish any religion, so it is constitutional, so it is OK on the school sign. Glad that's settled.

freak5646: Theism encompasses a belief in G_d. it IS a religion. and it is NOT ok on a school sign.

federalist01: freak <<it IS a religion.>>

Really? Which one?

freak5646: the religion of believing in G_d.

I don't believe.

oh, and it's not that the act or whatever has to "establish" in order to violate the 1st. it only has to be "respecting the establishment" -- ergo, breaking neutrality.

jkstraw_01: (Jay) <<Freak, spare me. Putting 'God Bless America' on a school sign in no way shape or form infringes on ANY of your rights as an American. NOT ONE.>>

Gotta agree with Jay a little bit here. There must be 40,000 school systems out there with "God Bless America," signs in their main lobbies. In fact, as I was walking my dog past our local elementary school, I could swear I saw the same sign in the lobby there, too.

It's kind of a "generic" blessing that we've all been accustomed to hearing and don't particularly or neccesarily attach any fervent religious meaning to it. It's repeated so often that I think it "offends" only the most rabid aetheists, or in this case, separation of church/state proponents.

Now..if the sign said "Jesus loves America," you might have something there.

Having said that..I could probably see how a few aetheists, for example, backed and supported by the "Separation" people, could get their way in getting a sign like that torn down, depending on the locality.

But I honestly can't get too worked up about "God Bless America," being hung on school property.

federalist01: (to freak) Catholicism is a religion. Buddhism is a religion. Islam is a religion. "Believing in God" is not a religion.

freak5646: yes it is. it is the opposite religion of atheism, which is a belief that there is no G_d.

they are both faiths. just because they may not meet YOUR definition does not make them "not" religions. but then, that is the entire point of the amendment that you are missing.

let me ask you this: why SHOULD the phrase be up on a school sign?

jkstraw_01: freak <<Catholicism is a religion. Buddhism is a religion. Islam is a religion. "Believing in God" is not a religion.>>

Hmmmm....I think that's a very good point. Just as there are people who aren't avidly "religious" people, but consider themselves "spiritual," and who believe in God.

federalist01: freak <<why SHOULD the phrase be up on a school sign?>>

Because the people at the school want it there.

freak5646: and to hell with the rest of us, huh?

I love that.

Jay, are you paying attention? not to single you out, but I was trying to make this point to you as the flip side to my rant, and as part of this discussion. but hey, feddy boy has made it pretty well for me.

see, the thing is that it comes across pretty clear that if I am not part of the "We" that trusts in G_d, I must not be part of the "We" that is "the People." and the attitude of the theists is very commonly, "so?" the question was posed, "who is really offended?" the answer, "me. and many others." the response: "so what? who cares? we want OUR belief put up in lights on public property, and to hell with you if you don't agree."

sorry, Jay, but I am going to pull out the slippery slope argument here, just like our friends like to do when gun control is discussed. today it is the school sign, tomorrow, it will be my house.

you don't fear that? I do.

you aren't offended? I am.

fuck me? fuck you.

jkstraw_01: federalist <<Because the people at the school want it there.>>

That's not a very good reason. Would you agree that the KKK fly their banner if the school board voted in favor?

I'm sort of ambivalent. If they want to keep a sign that says "God Bless America," hanging in their lobby...fine.

I remember as a child, pledging the national allegiance...

"one nation, under God,"

Nobody seemed to care then. Back in the late 60's and 70's. Why get worked up about it now?

I guess we're talking about the difference between a school "sponsoring" a specific state religion, and the tradition, passed down over 200 years, of attributing our nation's greatest blessings to God. In fact, its very creation.

But it's a very fine line. I don't think group school prayer should be permitted at football games, for example. We're getting into touchy separation issues.

federalist01: (to freak) The vast majority of Americans are not obligated to give up our free expression just because you're offended. The Constitution does not include a right to go through life unoffended.

freak5646: you are more than welcome to express on PRIVATE property. on PRIVATE time. matter of fact, I'll be more than happy to come and physically defend that right.

its when you cross the public line that you lose your high ground.

oh, and how about answering my question? hmmm?

with a real answer.

oh, and what about Matthew 6:5?

hmmm?

arklineart: (to federalist) I felt I was denied my rights in a state high school many years ago. We were taught that all the power of achievement was inside us and the concept of an external Divine Power there to help us was denied. In essence, state schools represented its own religion this way. Carpe Deim was the ruling idea- live today for tomorrow you will be dead. To me that is a religion replacing religion. If you do not want to say or have the word GOD anywhere you can always use Love instead. Love is the only thing that lasts forever and it satisfys everyones need for the Divine- that's Divine Love that I am taking about or Eternal everlasting Love....

freak5646: (to federalist) so now, let me get this straight, while we are at it.

I have to listen to you profess your faith on public property, but you don't have to listen to me not saying anything on public property.

that sounds right. sure.

federalist01: (to jk) A comparison of the KKK to religion is offensive.

freak5646: (to arklineart) who told you that external divine power was not available to you? how?

never happened in any of MY state schools.

freak5646: (to federalist) who says you get to go through life not being offended? no Constitutional gaurantee of that, as I recall.

JayC28: freak <<maybe you are having difficuulty with this since you are NOT a member of a minority religion/philosophy.>>

Freak, if some school somewhere decided they wanted to put 'Mother Earth Bless America' it would not bother me. I am comfortable enough with my own faith not to be threatened with such petty nonsense.

<<it somes across as a slap in the face. every time. you may not understand, but it would be nice if you would trust me. it is a slap in the face.>>

Then that is a problem that YOU have personally. Sorry, but you do not have a right not to be offended in this country. It is as simple as that.

As long as you are not being required to do anything as an established religion may require you to do, if your rights are not being violated, then that is the way it has to be. The government gives money to people who perform works of 'art' that are extremely offensive to me. There are other things taught in schools that go against every thing I believe in. It comes across as a slap in the face to me Freak, but at the same time, I know that it is an area that I can ultimately control outside of that arena.

federalist01: freak <<you are more than welcome to express on PRIVATE property. on PRIVATE time.>>

And you have the right of free speech only on PRIVATE propoerty, on PRIVATE time. You're advocating an unconstitutional prohibition of free exercise.

jkstraw_01: freak <<today it is the school sign, tomorrow, it will be my house.>>

I quite honestly think you're beireaching at this point. And I'm an avid separation of church/state proponent.

The concept of "God," has been in the schools as long as there have been schools. You surely can't expect that we're going to completely keep "God," out of our schools...and THAT means even the "idea" of God.

For 200+ years, children in our classrooms have been pledging allegiance as "one nation, under God." ....they've been singing "God Bless America," and "America the Beautiful," ("God shed his grace on thee?").

While it's likely much more complex than this, I think a good place to start is that you have to make a distinction between the practice or endorsement of a specific religion, and the 200 "tradition" of celebrating God's blessing on our country.

I prefer to keep a more vigilant watch on the kinds of church/state separation issues that really mean something...like the teaching of creation in a public school, or the possibility that my tax dollar might be used to pay for a child's religious secondary education.

JayC28: (to freak) It is? How are they ESTABLISHING a religion? You didnt answer my question earlier. What rights of yours under the first amendment are violated by such a sign?

jkstraw_01: federalist <<A comparison of the KKK to religion is offensive.>>

Is it?

"Racism" is every bit as much of an "ism," as "Catholocism."

One however, is inherently evil. But your point was that school systems should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Well, the 1st Ammendment says differently, and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the establishment clause several times.

freak5646: (to Jay)

1) I love the way that art always comes up. to be honest, I don't like that art anymore than you do. I don't get it. but then, I am not qualified to decide what is or is not art. but the argument, in itself, is irrelevant, Jay.

2) as to your contention that you would not be offended, would not see it as a breach of the 1st to put Mother Earth Bless America" on a school -- a) I think, as I have heard you on occasion talk about how your faith is maligned, that you are not being realistic. and b) I would be offended by that sign as much as I am by the one under consideration. because it implies a government position that there is some entity wherefrom blessings come. why can't it just say "America the Beautiful" or "PS 105 Loves America"? the POINT, Jay, is that religion has NO place on a school marquee. it belongs in the hearts, the homes, the churches, the synagogues, the temples, and the mosques. its supposed to be private, according to the Founding Fathers. part of their reasoning, I think -- but I haven't researched this particular point -- is that there should

be some respect one faith for another. and I don't feel like people who don't believe in G_d, in particular in the Judeo-Christian one, are respected that much in this country as it is, and especially by those who push school prayer and G_d on the marquee.

am I confident in my lack of faith? as confident as anyone can be when their position is "I don't know." but I don't see how that is relevant, either.

but maybe you can give me a better answer than fed did. why put the damn thing up anyway?

why?

freak5646: (to federalist) bullshit. I am not. show me how I have abrogated your right to free speech.

freak5646: (to jk) "Under G_d" is less than 60 years old, JK. and just because we haven't done it right so far, we don't dare fix it now?

JayC28: Freak, the first time a Congressman, state legislator or city councilman tries to pass a law that MANDATES you do something in the name of a religion. IE, compels you to engage in some kind of religious activity or conform to some kind or requirement, then I will be right there with you to tell that person to take a hike and help you file the lawsuit to get any such law overturned.

As for being offended? Sorry bud. We ALL get offended by what the government does from time to time.

freak5646: its not strictly establishment, its "respecting the establishment." its about the government NOT taking any position that marginalizes people like me.

but I guess that respect is too much to ask, ain't it?

federalist01: (to jk) The first amendment says we can't make Catholicism or Buddhism the official state religion. It does nto say we can't put "God Bless America" on a sign. That is nonsense.

freak5646: (to Jay) how about when a school official uses state property to express a religion, de facto mandating that my tax dollars are used to further a religion.

THAT'S the problem, Jay.

It's NOT just that I'm offended.

henny2010: Jay <<The government gives money to people who perform works of 'art' that are extremely offensive to me. There are other things taught in schools that go against every thing I believe in. It comes across as a slap in the face to me Freak>>

Jay, that is an excellent point. I am deeply offended by some artwork, and not pleased that my tax dollars are put towards funding, no matter how small the amount. However, no one is forcing me to believe that artists I find questionable are talented, or expressing something I believe in.

I believe that abortion is murder, and yet my tax dollars pay for public organizations that promote or perform abortions. Yet, no one is forcing me to have an abortion, or to say that I believe it is good and right.

Freak, as you know, I'm trying hard to understand your position, but Jay's position is making more sense to me so far.

federalist01: (to freak) The Founding Fathers never said religion should only be in private.

freak5646: Henny,

the art thing is an irrelevant argument. although I do understand it, and am not sure that I support the money going to the art.

as to abortion: no federal funds go to organizations that perform abortions. that is as it should be. as to informing patients of a legal medical option, I don't see a problem. do you?

or is the government going to make medical decisions for us, now?

I appreciate you trying to understand, and I think maybe I just need to let this one go. I wish that some people could walk a mile in my shoes, though.

jkstraw_01: freak <<and just because we haven't done it right so far, we don't dare fix it now?>>

60 years, 100 years...200 years..doesn't matter. On the church/state issue, I think you have to pick and choose your battles, Freak, if you're going to be taken seriously at all on this issue.

IMO...this ain't one of em' for the reason I mentioned. I'm not at all convinced that the "concept," of "one nation, under God," is an endorsement of any specific religion. It's really more an indictment of American tradition or heritage.

Well..I see where you're coming from. I just don't agree with the energy that you're pursuing this...but carry on!

freak5646: (to federalist) who said it had to be public?

who said that public structures existed to serve as media for the furthering of anyone's evangelism? who said my tax dollars should pay the light bill for the marquee out front when it says, "G_d Bless America?"

federalist01: You haven't but you want to. You want to limit where I can say "God"

freak5646: (to jk) even if it is not a direct endorsement of a particular religion, it is a tacit endorsement of religion as a concept, and a tacit marginalization of the non-religious.

but hey, who cares?

JayC28: freak <<I love the way that art always comes up. to be honest, I don't like that art anymore than you do. I don't get it. but then, I am not qualified to decide what is or is not art. but the argument, in itself, is irrelevant, Jay.>>

It is not irrelevant at all. It offends me Freak but it does not in any way violate any of my rights.

<<a) I think, as I have heard you on occasion talk about how your faith is maligned, that you are not being realistic.>>

Seeing a sign that says 'Mother Earth Bless America' is not MALIGINING my faith. There is a big difference Freak.

<<I would be offended by that sign as much as I am by the one under consideration. because it implies a government position that there is some entity wherefrom blessings come.>>

Oh Freak come on. Are you THAT insecure about yourself and what you think the world and who is 'blessing' the country that you think that this sign is somehow dangerous? You are truly reaching here. Your slippery slope argument doesnt wash here. At all.

<<But maybe you can give me a better answer than fed did. why put the damn thing up anyway?>>

Perhaps because the people at the school, along with the consent of the community wanted to portray a sense of patriotism and unity and put up a phrase that has been used in our government and in this country by politicians for over 200 years.

Sheesh, even Charles Haynes who is a 1st amendment scholar and with the Freedom Forum First Amendment center said that the temporary sign is nothing to get worked up over, especially if it is temporary.

"If it is a temporary expression, done in a moment of national crisis, and part of a patriotic outpouring that we see, then we should all just accept it and go on," Haynes said.

freak5646: (to federalist) anywhere you PAY to put it up, put it up. but the school sign isn't an advertising board. it is an official government informational device.

that's not a real limit.

JayC28: God is not a religion Freak. There is no 'establishment' to respect in the phrase 'God Bless America.'

JayC28: (to freak) I see. God is now a religion. When was God established? What kind of churches does that religion have?

You're reaching Freak. And yes, you DO sound like one of the 2nd amendment zealots who think that ANY regulation of firearms is somehow a violation of 1st amendment rights.

JayC28: freak <<no federal funds go to organizations that perform abortions.>>

Planned Parenthood gets federal funds and they most certainly do perform abortions.

freak5646: No, Jay, I'm not that insecure. But you are obviously incapable of seeing this from my perspective, and thereby of seeing my point.

I'm reminded of a saying, something about when they came for the other folks, I didn't say anything. apparently, my cosmology is not important enough to anyone else for it to be protected under the 1st. maybe I should remember that before I get all worked up when the faiths and beliefs of others are mocked and would be limited in their expression by detractors.

and you still haven't answered my question on respect. not Constitutionality, but respect.

federalist01: (to freak) It's called "free exercise"

henny2010: freak <<as to abortion: no federal funds go to organizations that perform abortions.>>

Bull. Ever hear of Planned Parenthood?

<<as to informing patients of a legal medical option, I don't see a problem. do you?>>

Similar to your feeling about religion on money, I believe that the government should be out of this entirely. Including informing.

freak5646: (to Jay) source? The PP office that I went to didn't perform. they did refer, though. what happened to W's exec order? and if your statement IS accurate, then the law needs to be enforced.

universeprince: I confess, Freak, that I had not precisely thought of the issue that way. And I think you make an excellent point. I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you on this issue, but you have given me something to think about. I thank you.

jkstraw_01: freak <<even if it is not a direct endorsement of a particular religion, it is a tacit endorsement of religion as a concept, and a tacit marginalization of the non-religious.>>

Freak...it says "In God we Trust," on the $1 Bill, does it not? That's U.S. currency.

Here's where I think you run into a problem...I think you run the risk of being accused of manufacturing a "crisis," where none really exists, on this issue.

I just think that the idea of God's blessing on our nation is so ingrained in our nation's heritage that's it's ridiculous to expect to completely remove God from our schools or the Halls of Congress.

I don't interpret the separation THAT literally.

That's all. But I do think that you make a more compelling point when it comes to aetheists potentially objecting.

I had written a longer post...but I hate the damn back button and lost it.

JayC28: Not all perform abortions, Freak, but all REFER. Here's just one that does:

http://gynpages.com/ppct/

freak5646: and a health care provider saying that a legal procedure IS a legal option is inviolation of the 1st how? its not a value judgement, is it?

henny2010: freak <<and a health care provider saying that a legal procedure IS a legal option is inviolation of the 1st how? its not a value judgement, is it?>>

I never said (and neither did Jay) that it was a violation of the First. It was given as an example that there is no "right" not to be offended.

arklineart: (to freak) The Concept of Diving Power was denied in History Class, Current Events and see what happens if a student gets up and starts praying for Divine Help in class. On the other hand , the concept of Carpe Deim-in those days it translated to live today for tomorrow you will be dead was prevalent in not courses but in sports etc. Today- the latest interpretation is -Seize the day- and that was in a top movie about school and the phrase took whole in reference to education in many ways. If the state denys the inclusion of religion in classes and substitutes something like this - you got a state religion . The parts in our Constitution were put in place to protect religion against the state and not vice versa . Furthermore our Constituition was founded on English Law that was founded on the Magna Carta which was founded on Scriptures and Scriptures is all about you know who....Deny the Divine in all of this and you deny the Constitution itself and then anything plays.

freak5646: (to henny) but I am arguing that one, placing "G_d" on school marquees or other bulletin board or display locations IS a violation of the 1st. so we are talking about different issues.

freak5646: (to arklineart) how was divine power denied? was it not taught? is that qhat you are saying? because that is a different thing. divine power can and should be taught in the house of worship and at home. not at school. that's the whole point.

as to getting up and praying? are you disrupting the class? then no go. are you silently conversing with G_d? then no problem.

and as to your Constitutional law argument, you are closer to the mark than you think, and yet farther away. the concept of separation of church and state can be DIRECTLY traced via English political theory to St. Augustine of Hippo and his treatises on the City of G_d and the City of Man. he argued that absolute separation was necessary for the existence of free will, which is a necessary part of G_d's plan.

thanks for helping me out, there.

henny2010: (to freak) This is obviously SUCH a touchy topic for you. No one here meant to personally offend you. (Ok, maybe some did, but most of us did not have that intention.)

I support your right to believe or not believe anything you choose. I believe that most of us would support that, and fight with our lives for that right. It benefits us all!

The simple fact that we don't agree with you on some of your personal issues does not mean that we don't support your rights.

I've watched our debates go back and forth in PIC for a number of months. BSA, abortion, stem cell, miscellaneous research funding... and it occurred to me that if we sat around and worried about stepping on someone's toes all the time, our country would be at a permanent stand still. Things just don't work that way.

I see the "In God We Trust" on currency or on signs in schools as a non-issue. You are not being forced to believe anything. No one is forcing you to practice a certain way, or trying to control you with religious doctrine. Obviously, both you and Dobber feel differently. If that is the case, perhaps both of you should be out with petitions, talking to your Congressmen, and taking a proactive approach.

But the question is, are these things TRULY a violation of your rights? Or just that you feel your toes are being stepped on? Out of curiosity, I am waiting for a return phone call from a friend with a Ph.D. is Political Science, regarding the First Amendment, Jefferson, etc. ... I really want to know what the scholars think. Also, Domer, Pete, with your backgrounds in law, what do you think?

texaswildcat responds to freak’s statement “how about when a school official utes state property to express a religion, de facto mandating that my tax dollars are used to further a religion.”

texaswildkat: How much of your personal contribution do you compute that they used? It has to be less than a penny. Give me your address and I will mail you a penny.

JayC28: (to freak) We're not talking about violations of the first amendment. We're talking about things the government does that offend people. You haven't demonstrated that the school sign is a violation of your first amendment rights.

JayC28: You havent demonstrated that it is a violation Freak.

federalist01: (to freak) I do pay for the schools.

federalist01: (to freak) You must really hate Jefferson's Declaration of Independence - "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator ..."

pc2two: freak <<I am arguing that one, placing "G_d" on school marquees or other bulletin board or display locations IS a violation of the 1st.>>

How is it a "violation" exactly. The theme of this thread has been your "irritation" and obvious offense to the idea/actions. Yet as already demonstrated earlier, no one in the country has a right NOT to be offended.

montanaguy53: freak <<the art thing is an irrelevant argument. although I do understand it, and am not sure that I support the money going to the art.>>

You claim that "the art thing" is irrelevant, but you give no reason why. I see the two situations as similar. You are offended because the government funds a display of religion you don't agree with, but you are not compelled to practice or pay attention to it.

Henny is offended by artwork--some of it demeaning religion--the government funds, and she doesn't agree with, but she is not compelled to like it or pay attention to it.

Tell me, where is the difference?

billman46226: (to montanaguy) Could this be related in a way to the arguments about what should or should not be allowed on the radio or television? In my opinion, if something offends you, you have as much right to just ignore it and turn it off as the person who is saying it has to say it. I have never seen a TV or radio without an on/off switch.

montanaguy53: (to billman) I'm inclined to let people say about anything they want, and TV to broadcast anything it wants. As you say, you can always turn it off. (There are practical and defined exceptions like incitements to riot, fighting words, etc.)

People turning off will let the broadcaster, or more accurately the advertisers, know that this isn't acceptable to enough people to make it worth running.

asteinfort: (to federalist) how so? what's the difference between a sign that says "nigger go home" and one that says "God bless America"? They are both offensive to some, and both put up by the local gov't at one point or another. My tax dollars shouldn't support either. There are only two things that should be diplayed on Gov't property (that is btw public property) and that is the US flag and the respective state flag. Nothing else.

"God bless America" excludes all other religions, and unless the school or other gov't institution intends to include the names of all other dieties worshipped by citizens of this nation (sp?) on the sign, then they should just take it down and put something up that is all inclusive like "Pray for America". Pretty much every religion prays or meditates, right?

asteinfort: (to Jay) I don't know what Planned Parenthood clinic you are referring to but the one here in Anchorage AK doesn't do them and the website for the org says they don't do them either. All Planned Parenthood does is give you information, and if you are under 24 you can get your annual pap smear and birth control pills for a very nominal cost. That's it. Maybe you should visit a Planned Parenthood clinic in your area to find out what they really do.

asteinfort: (to Jay) so, who cares if they refer?

asteinfort: (to billman) when your child is compelled by law to attend school, then you cannot turn it on or off like a switch on a tv or radio.

henny2010: (to asteinfort) The ones in Michigan do.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppsm/

Abortion Services

First and Second Trimester Abortions * Medical Abortions (non-surgical) * Financial assistance available

pc2two: asteinfort <<how so? what's the difference between a sign that says "nigger go home" and one that says "God bless America"?>>

That's easy. One is MEANT to be mean, devisive, and derrogatory. The other is MEANT to be supportive, reassuring, and patriotic. You couldn't figure that out?

BOTH however, are in no way, violationg any rights. I'd be offended at the 1st, perhaps you're offended by the 2nd. We both do not have the right NOT to be offended in this country

asteinfort: (to henny) and do you know for a fact that the ones in MI receive federal funds?

asteinfort: pc2two <<That's easy. One is MEANT to be mean, devisive, and derrogatory. The other is MEANT to be supportive, reassuring, and patriotic. You couldn't figure that out?>>

how is "God bless America" supportive, reassuring, and patriotic to a Hindu child?

henny2010: (to asteinfort) Yes. But I am not going to spend any great deal of time trying to find information for you. THAT was NOT the point of the thread.

Go back through the posts, and you'll see that the point was... no one in this country has a right NOT to be offended. Myself included. This was the example I used.

pc2two: asteinfort <<how is "God bless America" supportive, reassuring, and patriotic to a Hindu child?>>

If I recall, (I'm not Hindu), they too believe in a God.

Next question?

JayC28: (to asteinfort) I dont need to visit one to know what they do. I didnt say ALL Planned Parenthood facilities peform abortions, but many DO and they get federal funding.

Maybe you should do a little more research into the subject.

JayC28: (to asteinfort) Follow the thread back. You're missing key pieces of the discussion.

billman46226: (to asteinfort) If you object to what is happening in a childs school...Home schooling is an option.

billman46226: (to asteinfort) Maybe because "May whatever Deity you believe in do whatever you deem appropriate to support the country or state of your choice" would take up too much space...

cryptoheathen: asteinfort <<"Pray for America". Pretty much every religion prays or meditates, right?>>

your solution is worse than the original. Think about it, the first one is an affirmation, a plead to a deity. The second looks like a command aimed at the people to pray... much worse, in my opinion...

Having said that, I think the whole "GBA" issue was a necessity in the beginning... there are lots of people in this country that are comforted by their beliefs in a deity... I really disliked it, but I figured, hard times call for hard measures...

however, that initial shock is gone and I really wished the government went back to respecting all its citizens and the constitution... we have more important things to do than fight stuff like this in court... I think the signs should be put down from public property. You want patriotism? Try the Flag!!!. That is a symbol that we can all rally behind...

freak5646: (to Jay) I think that I have. and you haven't demonstrated that it isn't.

freak5646: (to federalist) and the purpose of the schools now is to promote YOUR religious agenda?

freak5646: (to federalist) Hate? no. glad it ain't part of the law of the land? on that one count, yes.

you must really hate some of his other writings regarding religion and those who "practice" it.

freak5646: (to pc2two) it is a violation because it is the government taking a defacto position that G_d exists.

real simple, people.

JayC28: (to freak) How? Because you said it is?

1. It is not a law.

2. It does not establish a religion.

3. It does not respect the establishment of a religion.

4. It does not give favor to one religion over another in any form of public policy, because there is nothing binding about it. It does not say, "You Must Believe God Blesses America" or some variation thereof.

You havent been able to demonstrate your position at all.

freak5646: (to montanaguy) the art thing is irrelevant because IT is a case wherein you are not protected from being offended. the 1st Amendment, and religion in particular, are first among equals in the Bill of Rights because the relationship between a man or woman and his or her idea of the universe is the most personal of all facets of life. art is someone else's commentary on life, perhaps including religion. but I am talking about the government, by placing such signs on government property, taking a defacto position.

as I argue this, I find the art situation troubling. but it is STILL not relevant. it is an attempt to divert attention from the main issue.

and I don't like at all where the main issue seems to be going. down the "fuck you if you don't want to join our club" road.

freak5646: (to pc2two) no, Sirs, they are NOT the same. one is religious in nature.

freak5646: (to pc2two) how is it reassuring to an atheist or agnostic child?

how is it reassuring to a hindu child when he or she is aware enough to KNOW that the sign is NOT referring to Siva or Vishnu, but to Yahweh or Allah or the Triune Christian G_d?

you just can't step out of your own context, can you?

freak5646: (to billman) why not a sign that just says, "America"?

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO REFER TO G_D IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER?

freak5646: (to Jay) it implies a favoritism of the government toward theism.

that implies a state position supporting theism. which includes a numer of religions, and excludes a number of others.

you still haven't explained why it should be there?

henny2010: freak <<and I don't like at all where the main issue seems to be going. down the "fuck you if you don't want to join our club" road.>>

No, John, this is a debate in an internet forum. "Fuck you if you don't want to join our club" is pushing it a BIT.

YOU brought up the topic as an item of debate. You are getting the debate and discussion that would be expected in a forum like this.

JayC28: freak <<you still haven't explained why it should be there?>>

Yes I did. Several posts back::

(Post 165018) Perhaps because the people at the school, along with the consent of the community wanted to portray a sense of patriotism and unity and put up a phrase that has been used in our government and in this country by politicians for over 200 years.

"If it is a temporary expression, done in a moment of national crisis, and part of a patriotic outpouring that we see, then we should all just accept it and go on," Haynes said.

pc2two: (to freak) I'm still waiting for this supposed Federal mandate or legislation that is imposing some "defacto position" of the Governent, on the citizens of the U.S., Freak.

Until you can demonstrate some of that, then all we have is your offense to the notion that the majority of this country harbor sentiments towards a deity of some sort, and that the Government allows it.

Funny thing, this "freedom" stuff

freak5646: (to Jay) just how temporary is it, Jay?

over my 31 years, I've seen more attempts to make such things permanent -- school prayer, creationism in science class, edited reading lists, etc. -- than I can count.

and consent of the community in this case is nothing more than tyranny of the majority.

freak5646: (to pc2two) my offense is to having it shoved down my throat via a GOVERNMENT AVENUE.

you want it on your church marquee? fine.

you want it on the front lawn of your home? fine.

you want it on your car? fine.

you want it on your place of business? fine.

you put it on a government billboard or other public posting place, and it becomes defacto endorsement.

but hey.. I get it. ok? I get it. I'm a second class citizen.

freak5646: (to Jay) under what conditions would it be ok, Jay, for a consensus of people to put up a sign at a school that said, "G_d is dead"?

pc2two: With all due respect Freak, your version of "shoved" and "defacto sponsored" still is NOT a Federal Mandate, nor a violation of the 1st amendment I'm afraid. Perhaps that small minority of folks who don't have a God, along with the folks at ACLU, and those that support them are the only ones truely offended.

But Freak.........There's still no Government sponsored religion, which is what the 1st amendment protects, and that Jefferson was stressing, in his language of the "seperation of Church and State"

JayC28: freak <<just how temporary is it, Jay?>>

Call the school and ask them.

<<over my 31 years, I've seen more attempts to make such things permanent -- school prayer, creationism in science class, edited reading lists, etc. -- than I can count.>>

Fine. And where is there school led prayer? Where is creationsim taught in science classes? Edited reading lists? Shit, talk to people that want to remove Huck Finn because the book says 'nigger' in it? It isnt theists that do that Freak, so lets not pigeonhole that one.

<<and consent of the community in this case is nothing more than tyranny of the majority.>>

Tyranny? Oh brother. What absolute power in a small town in California is making all the decisions Freak?

JayC28: freak: <<but hey.. I get it. ok? I get it. I'm a second class citizen.>>

Stop it. YOU'RE the one that wanted to have this discussion! YOU'RE asking the questions. YOU'RE challenging other people's views on the subject.

Don't start playing the 'victim' game now that you find yourself on the other side of an argument.

freak5646: (to Jay) whatever.

universeprince: cryptoheathen <<You want patriotism? Try the Flag!!!. That is a symbol that we can all rally behind...>>

Not all, unfortunately. Remember the dummies who wouldn't ride on the fire truck with the American flags on it? And people like laservisor and his pal Walden Bello might not be so eager to rally 'round the flag of a country they obviously mistrust so much. And those pro-communist pacifists someone mentioned here a while back, don't believe they would show up either. Sad, isn't it?

CUSpringsGirl: freak <<why not a sign that just says, "America"?>>

Because "America" is not a complete sentence. It'd be pretty dumb to display blatant grammatical errors on a school board.

LOL

universeprince: Freak, I've decided I'm with you on this one. I think too much fuss has been made over the issue, but I do agree that a reference to G-d on a government institution sign is wrong. The government of the U.S. of A. is not a theocracy it is a republic. And one that promotes freedom of religion. Even so, I think it was a well intentioned mistake.

Perhaps they should put up, "America is the greatest, yeah baby!"

CUSpringsGirl: (to freak) From the 1st Amendment:

"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (That may not be verbatim, but it's pretty damn close)

First, what has CONGRESS done in the given situation? And what LAW has been passed? And how does this respect the ESTABLISHMENT of a particular religion or PROHIBIT the free exercise of any other? The only evidence you've presented is your discomfort with the phrase, and as a student at a state university I can tell you that publicly-funded educational institutions do stuff that makes me uncomfortable ALL THE TIME. Are my rights being violated? Hmmm....

universeprince: (to CUSpringsGirl) English majors of the world, unite!

CUSpringsGirl: universe <<Perhaps they should put up, "America is the greatest, yeah baby!">>

LOL! That would be shagadellic!

JayC28: (to freak) Hey John, don't go getting pissed off at me. In no way shape or form did me, Henny, or Sirs behave as if you were a 'second class citizen.'

We were having a discussion that for the most part you initiated. You wanted answers and you got them. We've demonstrated how we feel that our faith is treated second rate with respect to the government. Yet we have also conceded that although it is something we do not agree with, it is not the government taking any kind of official stance on religion. You're not being very even handed here.

freak5646: what you have not done, Jay, is address the difference between government making value judgements versus making legal judgements.

re: certain arguments made heretofore:

1) abortion is legal. the government does nothing that I am aware of that makes a calue judgement as to the moralilty or immorality, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the procedure.

2) govt supported art: I could argue here that the government position is one that states that the American people, through their representatives, support art on principle. and that the government does not make value judgements regarding the art itself. but I am not, in truth, comfortable with it. its one of those issues where I am uncomfortably riding the fence. I support free expression. I support respecting the religious/faith based opinions of others. and I find them in conflict here -- because government money is involved.

3) having G_d referenced on government displays -- coinage, marquees, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. is a defacto value judgement that having G_d there is appropriate. you guys think that it is, I completely disagree. you have never been part of the minority that does not get included by the proclamation of national faith, I have. You have not explained to me why the proclamations on public standards are appropriate. I have explained to you why they are insulting. You just don't want to accept my answer.

I should not feel pissed off? Try walking in my shoes a while, Jay. It might give you a different perspective on this. I've walked in yours. Many a year. Try walking in mine. Then tell me about even handedness.

ok, look. on another note. I realize that you guys don't see this the way I do. I don't think you ever will. I can only hope that you will someday appreciate just how personal it is, just how touchy, as Henny put it, the subject is. And I hope that someday I can see the answers that you have given me in some other light than I currently do.

JayC28: Freak, how do you know that I have never been part of this minority that you say you are a part of? For your information, I was an avowed atheist up until I was around 24. I had no use for religion or anything that had to do with it.

Yet, I was not offended by 'In God We Trust' being on money. I was not offended by politicians saying, "God Bless America" in almost every speech. It is just not something that I got worked up over.

<<You have not explained to me why the proclamations on public standards are appropriate.>>

LOLOL! I have....TWICE as a matter of fact. It was a simple enough explantion and you tried to turn it into some deep rooted conspiracy where this was the first step in religion taking over our government. I've even shown you that a leading scholar who helps run an organization devoted to first amendment issues said that this was merely a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and that it is not something to get so worked up about.

<<I have explained to you why they are insulting. You just don't want to accept my answer.>>

Guess what Freak. I dont HAVE to accept your answer. We have explained to you how federally funded abortions and art that desecrates our faith is insulting and the best you can do is say, "It's irrelevant" or "It is legal."

Well, the 'God Bless America' on that school is legal. According to this article:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/news/local03_20011013.html

the California Supreme Court has stated that the phrase 'God Bless America' is a traditional, patriotic, non-religious phrase.

piper229: (to freak) You havent come close to showing "establishment of religion." Try again.

asteinfort: (to pc2two) Actually they believe in Brahman who has countless manifestations...Hindus pick the ones that they like the best or that is traditional for them to worship.

asteinfort: (to billman) maybe for that 12% of US families that has a stay at home parent. the rest of us can't afford that luxury.

asteinfort: (to freak) the sign could have said:

"Bless America"

"Bless our Nation"

"Pray for America"

"Pray for our Nation"

"America the Beautiful"

and on and on and on. It surely didn't have to say God.

asteinfort: (to pc2two) it bothers me to have the sign posted at a school, and I do believe in God...but I also believe in the seperation of Church and state and the ideals that this country was founded upon.

asteinfort: Jay <<We've demonstrated how we feel that our faith is treated second rate with respect to the government.>>

well join the club. Now you know how everyone esle feels (that doesn't worship the Christian God).

JayC28: asteinfort <<well join the club. Now you know how everyone esle feels (that doesn't worship the Christian God).>>

First of all, 'God Bless America' is not limited to the Christian God. 'God' is very generic and is used for all sorts of faiths. Heck, the sign could have been talking about Eric Clapton! (Remember, 'Clapton is God.'?)

Second of all, you post my first statement but leave out the follow-up:

"Yet we have also conceded that although it is something we do not agree with, it is not the government taking any kind of official stance on religion."

So don't give me this, 'now you know how we feel' drivel as though it is something new for others.

pc2two: There are many things that "bother me" as well astein, that the Government does, and those are all fine "opinions" that you hold. HOWEVER, the seperation of church and state does not apply in this situation, since it's been made clear that there is no Federal Mandate for anyone to follow, observe, conform, or whatever, to any specific "State Religion", which is what the Seperation of Church and State is all about, and what this country was founded upon.

As soon as there's any sign of the Government doing such a thing (imposing a State Religion), as Jay said earlier, I'll be standing right next to you in protest.

The End