The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - Religion and Free Expression  

TTigerAtty 62M
3769 posts
7/3/2006 11:35 am

Last Read:
6/19/2008 12:59 pm

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - Religion and Free Expression

On one of my recent postings, another blogger newaroundhere64 asked about my views regarding so-called "Separation of Church and State". I'd like to get some discussion going on this important subject. I know that newaroundhere64 has some thoughts, and I'm hoping he'll come back to share them. I will wait and share my views as part of the comment section.

As a bit of background reading, I've copied the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as some background information.

The right to worship as we individually see fit is one of the important guarantees spelled out in the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments). The knowledge that NO particular religion will be established as the state religion is a comforting assurance to all free men and women, and yet it requires tremendous tolerance by all.

But, as many would say, have we gone too far in removing God from classrooms, from courtrooms, etc. Should there be room for reference to a monotheistic God in our public square as there had been for the first 200 years of our country's existence? What is YOUR opinion?

RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION
FIRST AMENDMENT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

RELIGION - An Overview

Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed." The language was altered in the House to read:
"Congress shall make no law establishing
religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." In the Senate, the section adopted read: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion,..."
It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its somewhat more indefinite "respecting" phraseology. Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson, who influenced him, is
fairly clear, but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.


RELIGION - Scholarly Commentary

The explication of the religion clauses by scholars in the nineteenth century gave a restrained sense of their meaning. J. Story, who thought that "the right of a society or
government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality
are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice," looked upon
the prohibition simply as an exclusion from the Federal Government of all power to act upon the subject. "The situation . . . of the different
states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, Episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others Presbyterians; in others, Congregationalists; in others, Quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would
have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state
governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any
inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship." "Probably," J. Story also wrote, "at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration,
the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal
indignation." The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. Not until the Supreme Court held the religion clauses applicable to the states in the 1940s did it have much opportunity to interpret them. But it quickly gave them a broad construction. In Everson v. Board of Education, the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that "aid one religion" or "prefer one religion over another," but also those that "aid all religions." With respect to the Free Exercise Clause, it asserted in Wisconsin v. Yoder that "only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion." More recent decisions, however, evidence a narrower interpretation of the religion clauses. Indeed, in Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith the Court abandoned its earlier view and held that the Free Exercise Clause never
"relieve(s) an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability." On the Establishment Clause, the Court has not wholly repudiated its previous holdings, but recent decisions have evidenced a greater sympathy for the view that the clause bars "preferential" governmental promotion of some religions but allows governmental promotion of all religion in general. Nonetheless, the Court remains sharply split on how to interpret both clauses.


Copyright © July, 2006 by TTigerAtty


TTigerAtty
TIGERS, LLC
non illigitimae carborundum
~ ^ ~ ^ ~
~ 0 _ 0 ~
> "" "" <
` ^^ ^^ `


RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
7/4/2006 11:59 am

Very simply, keep YOUR religion out of OUR law. Easy enough isn't it? Pretty simple if you ask me. What you believe is fine for you, I don't want it shoved in my face, nor encoded into laws affecting everybody.

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


LilSquirt_4mfm 67M/67F
3394 posts
7/4/2006 12:56 pm




A Grrrrrrreat July 4!!!
to you Jackie

& to All the USA!!!!


BTW - That was some neat firecracker at the Cape!!!

Note: This is a a politics - free genuine wish!!
(just a lil hint)


LilSquirt_4mfm 67M/67F
3394 posts
7/4/2006 1:00 pm




A Grrrrrrreat July 4!!!
to All the USA!!!!


BTW - That was some neat firecracker at the Cape!!!

(Note: This is an agenda - free genuine wish!! only
(just a lil hint there)


sillyperv 54M

7/4/2006 5:17 pm

If you're concerned by the loss of faith, no matter the creed, then a moment of silence to permit the faithful time to "pray" as they may need, allows spirituality to exist without imposing one faith over another.

Speaking of a religion that American's have trouble understanding Italy 2 - Germany 0. Great game. Could have gone either way. Italy in the final Sunday. You must watch and then look out for a news report about the party in Toronto if Italy wins.
Happy 4ths!


TTigerAtty 62M

7/5/2006 10:02 am

Say more, Joe. Are you in favor of complete removal of all references to God in public places, in public documents, great patriotic songs like 'God Bless America', 'America the Beautiful', etc., currency, in everything that you might come into contact with? Are you with the ACLU on this? Let's get rid of God and all references to God? Say a bit more, Joe. I've got a view on this and will post it as a comment later. Thanks for dropping by!


TTigerAtty 62M

7/5/2006 10:03 am

    Quoting LilSquirt_4mfm:


    A Grrrrrrreat July 4!!! to All the USA!!!!

    BTW - That was some neat firecracker at the Cape!!!

    (Note: This is an agenda - free genuine wish!! only
    (just a lil hint there)
Thanks for dropping by!


TTigerAtty 62M

7/5/2006 10:09 am

    Quoting sillyperv:
    If you're concerned by the loss of faith, no matter the creed, then a moment of silence to permit the faithful time to "pray" as they may need, allows spirituality to exist without imposing one faith over another.

    Speaking of a religion that American's have trouble understanding Italy 2 - Germany 0. Great game. Could have gone either way. Italy in the final Sunday. You must watch and then look out for a news report about the party in Toronto if Italy wins.
    Happy 4ths!
silly - Congrats on Italy's win! I guess the Germans are crying in their German beer over their! I will definitely watch the championship match! Perhaps we will be somewhat in agreement on this one. I support a moment to recite the 'Pledge of Allegiance' followed by a moment of silent prayer. I would go even one step further to openly acknowledge people of all faith and to teach a bit of the history and beliefs of all the world's great religions. I'll flesh my thoughts out later in a comment. Thanks for dropping by! Go Italy!


TTigerAtty 62M

7/5/2006 12:33 pm

IF I COULD HAVE IT MY WAY ...

1. I would allow for a short period of daily silent prayer in American classrooms. Yes, you ACLU types, even in public school classrooms. This brief period of daily prayer would follow 'The Pledge of Allegiance' to the American flag. And yes, I support the Dwight D. Eisenhower version of the pledge, to wit: "One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

2. I would encourage "free expression" of a kid's religion. He/she would be made to feel comfortable and free to "express" it in a public school during silent prayer. He/she would also be taught to be very "respectful and tolerant" of other kids who might worship differently. Kids would learn early on that we are a country which "embraces, encourgages and celebrates people of all religious faiths". They would learn that, although people in other countries of the world have and may, in fact, still kill each other because of the differences of skin color, religious belief and ethnic difference, we want to have a country where people are free to worship as they choose and as they have been taught by the traditions of their religious faith.

3. I would teach a course in "The Great Religions of the World" at various points during the public education process. The intent of the course(s) would be to: (a) promote knowledge, understanding, awareness and appreciation of other religions, (b) promote respect and tolerance for others who have grown up in differenct religious traditions and (c) promote an appreciation and deep reverence for the American right and freedom of religious expression. I am open-minded as to when and how these course(s) would be taught, but I can imagine one course taught during say the 4th grade, one taught in say the 7th grade and another taught during say the 12th grade. Upon graduation from high school, every American kid would know the great religions of the world (and local community), they would appreciate the similarities and distinct differences and they would understand and respect people who believe differently than they believe.

4. God would not be run out of the public square. Options would be available to recognize God in the public square (schools, courts, public buildings, etc.) as long as all major religions were represented either by symbol or by religious verse or other means. (Standards to be determined by a blue ribbon commission of religious leaders in our country.) In this way, we recognize and embrace many of the great religions of our country and do so in a way which does not exclude people of any faith. I know this might be hard to accomplish, but I feel it is worth looking into.

5. References to God would remain in U.S. coinage, currency, patriotic song lyrics, pledges, prayers said within Congress, prayers offered prior to sporting events, etc. It would be understood that, in this context, we refer to the monotheistic God of all the major religions. Now, this might bring up the problem for atheists and those who worship Mother Earth and/or multiple gods and/or goddesses. For these Americans, they simply could abstain from participating in the prayer or pledge that would be meaningful to the vast majority of Americans. I know this will be a big issue for the ACLU and perhaps others. I suspect those of faiths who do believe in and worship one God will never satisfy the godless among us ... never, short of tearing down all churches, synagogues, mosques and temples, burning all Bibles, Korans, Torahs, Catechisms, etc., removing God from all coinage, currency, schools, courthouses, etc., and banning all religious jewelry. For those people, let us pray!

Joe, I would only offer you this thought, and, as an ordained minister, I hope you will understand my meaning and my intent. By opening up the subject of religion in our country (taking a different tack than ACLU folks might understand) and by honoring and respecting all people who are free to worship as they so choose, I would seek only to recognize the importance of faith in our country, the importance of worshipping freely and the importance of acceptance. I would seek to honor people of faith vs. denigrade them as the ACLU and the atheist would have us do. By doing what I have suggested, we would uphold and protect the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We would protect it from the ACLU and the Godless Religion of Liberalism which works tirelessly and ever so stealthly and insidiously to replace Faith in God with Faith in the Godless State Religion of Liberalism.

Now, I know that I have made some bold and shocking statements here. But, just think about what I'm saying. Think about the drift in this country. Think about where we might be headed as a people and as a country in another 230 years without God as our moral compass. Think about whether the ACLU is right that we should drive God completely out of our country. (Don't laugh. Out of sight is out of mind!) Think about whether those who warn about this from the Christian right could possibly be on to something. Is there not a good, middle-of-the-road compromise position that makes good sense and that really does protect our precious "freedom of religious expression"?

For those who may think I am fanatical crazy person, allow me to tell you my background. I'm a mid-westerner, born and raised in the Christian religion, and educated in the public school system from kindergarten through a state university. I have associated with Christians of various denominations, Jews and Muslims. I have been in churches of most Christian denominations, synagogues and one mosque. Beyond that, I am clueless. I have never taken a college level course on the great religions of the world. I raised my only daughter in the public school system. She is a senior in our state university and will attend grad school somewhere yet to be determined. I believe that lack of understanding of each other is a barrier to peace and cooperation in our world. I encouraged my daughter to take courses in religion at the college level so that she could learn more about the great religions of the world. She did so, and she enjoyed this broadening experience. So, I feel that I am a fairly typical American.


MillsShipsGayly 51M

7/5/2006 2:05 pm

I like your stance.

Separation means tolerance of individuals' right to express and practice their beliefs not a form of a-religious secularism.

Great post ....

When are you going to post on North Korea, Iran?


TTigerAtty 62M

7/5/2006 2:39 pm

    Quoting MillsShipsGayly:
    I like your stance.

    Separation means tolerance of individuals' right to express and practice their beliefs not a form of a-religious secularism.

    Great post ....

    When are you going to post on North Korea, Iran?
Lord, Mike, I'd have to do a bunch of research on that one! If you'll post, I'll comment. I know one thing though, Kim Jong-il needs a new rocket scientist over there and a whole bunch of new engineers! Six rockets into the Sea of Japan. I wonder if we have recovered the Taepodong-2 long-range missile yet? I'd be interested to know what the payload was. Nuclear device? Satellite? Cherry bomb? Fish food?

This would be a good topic though! Immediately within 24-hours, everyone looks to the USA for the answers, for resolution, but mostly, for someone to blame. Let the South Koreans, Chinese, Russians and Japanese deal with "Dear Leader"!

I tell ya', I'm gettin' fed up with the Blame America Firsters! I'm gettin' tired of Madeleine Albright's second-guessing too! She can just go play shuffleboard as far as I'm concerned!


micahbiguns 50M

7/6/2006 12:26 am

Hey Tige the time has come my frient to say audios. I just want to say thanks friend ! you the man!! May life bless you much more than you deserve

Mick


MOfunNOWWOW 55F

7/6/2006 2:24 pm

Tig I came by to see a poem or two and had to dig deep. Your blog your way sinatra oh no that was the other party....Anyway I see we are getting to ask you your views on things so here is a question for you and hopefully you will make a post it too but don't pimp me please! How do you feel about a long slow toe curling blow job? Remember those? Love ya {=}


MOMO
just a squirrel trying to get a nut


sillyperv 54M

7/6/2006 4:28 pm

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Though I'd keep the separation of Church and State - for the health and welfare of both. I think it would work. It's not asking anyone to perform their spiritual rituals - just to take a moment to acknowledge their thoughs before the start of the day - mine would have been Suzie Smoltz's breasts - but to each their own.

Azzurri vs Les Bleus. Cannavarro vs Zidane! Toni vs Thuram. Buffon vs Barthez. Countries stopped and rivited and waiting to explode. It just doesn't get any better.


TTigerAtty 62M

7/7/2006 10:18 am

I'm sure you do.


TTigerAtty 62M

7/7/2006 10:38 am

    Quoting newaroundhere64:
    Well, well, well...how can I pass up commenting after you've pimped me out?

    First, we need to have some definitions; "Religion" denotes a particular set of beliefs, often accompanied with rulles of conduct. "Spirituality" denotes a state of being. Not everyone is religous. Yet, everyone is spiritual.

    Many of the founding fathers, and most of those who started this grand social experiment in the back rooms of Boston, believed not in Christianity, as such, but in a Diety, an Intelligence not termed "God". A little known fact is that their way of getting around putting the word "God" in the D of I and Const. was to refer to It as "Providence" and "Life, liberty and happiness". Our rights were protected in these pursuits.

    As to the seperation of Church and State; in order to start a church, there are certain things one has to have in place. A creed, or statement of beliefs. A board of directors. An established heirarchy (Pope, cardinal, archbishop, bishop, regent, chancellor, priest, et al). Regularly scheduled prayer sessions (i.e, church services). Classes and workshops on the particular faith (chatechism, f'rinstance).

    Once these criteria have been established, a church number is granted. In every covenant with the State, a Church must agree to not endorse any political party or candidate or try to influence it's congregation as such. Chuch officers are not allowed to cast votes (my ballot will never say Rev. nah64. Just nah64, because I pay taxes). The State likewise agrees to not impose censorship on the teachings of the church. AND, the Church is exempt from most corporate laws. Churches are allowed to discriminate in employment opportunities. A Jew cannot sue the Catholic church for denying him a job even though the decision was based on his religion, sex, race and/or creed.

    It is only after having a CHurch number granted can a church apply for non-profit status with the IRS. And that has it's own set of hoops to jump. Did you know there is much more accountability of bookkeeping for a non-profit than there is for a for-profit? Amusing, isn't it?

    It MUST be this way. There is no other way for freedom of religion to exist.

    As to your further points:
    1. Allowing for 'quiet time' in schools would be for either prayer, meditation, introspection, napping or any other activity which allow the individual to remind themselves of their spirituality. Remember, not everyone is religous, but everyone is spiritual. Can you imagine a Muslim reciting prayers out loud (as per the Islamic Law) while another child spins as a Whirling Dervish (Sufi) as a Bhuddist empties their mind of thoughts? It just wouldn't work. The public school system is an institution of factual information disseminated to it's students. It is not the time or place for spiritual experience as part of its curriculum. It's been said that to truly find God, you have to be out of your mind. But, I'll save that for another post.

    This is also why Creationism cannot be taught in schools. It's a theory, a belief system, not something that has been factually proven. You have to keep in mind the environment you're creating in.

    Also keep in mind that it has to be both ways. My church services have an invocation, meditation, a sermon, a celebration of prosperity and a benediction. No room for social studies, math, science, history or PE in a church service!

    It's a spiritual sanctuary, for God's sake. Pun intended.

    2. Pretty much the same as 1.

    3. THIS is where spiritual experience CAN be made part of the curriculum. It must be an elective class and not mandated by the state. Many of the world's problems will be eliminated when the religions of the world can come together and say "We are not better than, just different". Beliefs cause behaviors. These classroom lessons will be much more comprehensive if they were to include critical thinking. Looking at different behaviors in the world and understanding the beliefs which caused them would advance civilization tremendously. I wonder why these types of classes aren't offered through religous organizations, such as interfaith based groups. So you want the public schools to offer it? Isn't that like saying since the church won't teach it, we'll make sure the tax financed institutions do it? Isn't that asking the government to take care of us? Gee, you sound leftist, suddenly! Can you imagine a Montessori school, or Catholic or Baptist private school offer this curriculum? God forbid they should give the other guy a break! They might lose some of their donations, gifts and tithes!!

    4. God is not religious. God is too big to fit into one religion. That's why there are so many churches in the world. I belive He has no preference one way or the other. God is Universal, no double entendre inteded. I know of no Atheists who are offended by someone elses belief in a Supreme Being. The Constitution of the United States is the Creed of this land. It was, imho, inspired by Providence, Life, God, whatever Name you wish to invoke. Any argument along these lines sells alot of papers and TV commercials.

    5. Sure, leave "God" in, just leave Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna, Joseph Smith and others out. Simple as that.

    TTiger, freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. Can you imagine the State mandating what you can pray, Whom you can pray to, when you can and cannot meet, what form of worship is allowable and what forms aren't? What I hear in the remainder of your post is why it's OK for religion to influence the state. Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and render unto God that which is God's.

    Spiritual freedom creates no idealogies, no isms, no dissenting philosophies which divide, corrupt or destroy communication between human souls. No governments are upturned, no faiths or sects eliminated. Only a One-to-one contact which flames quietly, bringing a lifetime of contentment and the realization that nothing in this world is worth exchanging for it.

    Those who must argue for more people to believe as they do simply haven't enough certainty in what they themselves believe and need others to validate that their actions are worthy. Religions don't neccesarily ask you to think for yourself, but to accept what they say as, well... the God honest truth. And people are happy to go along with that. Why should I think for myself when my ancestors have figured the whole thing out?

    Have you seen the condition the world is in? You think GOD did this? You think it's the best He could do? How arrogant is that?

    Well, this will have to suffice to fan some flames on this discussion.
I knew I'd get a thorough, thoughtful and reasoned response from you on this post! Thanks, Norman! Lot's to think about here. I will take a day or two and formulate some questions for you and others, stuff I'm trying to wrap my own mine around.

My questions will be intended to stimulate more discussion not so much to challenge what you have said. I am understanding (and agreeing with) many of your points, but I'm still feeling that we are losing something by driving God, a Higher Power, whatever you choose to call Him, out of the public square. I don't think the framers of the Constitution intended this or there never would have been prayer in public settings such as schools, never would have been swearing in of witnesses using the Holy Bible in courtroom trials, and the long-standing tradition opening each session of the House of Representatives and the Senate with a prayer offered by their Chaplain.

Looking forward to more good discussion!


TTigerAtty 62M

7/7/2006 10:40 am

    Quoting micahbiguns:
    Hey Tige the time has come my frient to say audios. I just want to say thanks friend ! you the man!! May life bless you much more than you deserve

    Mick
Mick ... We all hate to see you leave, but I'm happy to know that you are moving on in your life with a very special gal! Congrats to you and 'C'! Many, many happy years together!


TTigerAtty 62M

7/7/2006 10:49 am

    Quoting MOfunNOWWOW:
    Tig I came by to see a poem or two and had to dig deep. Your blog your way sinatra oh no that was the other party....Anyway I see we are getting to ask you your views on things so here is a question for you and hopefully you will make a post it too but don't pimp me please! How do you feel about a long slow toe curling blow job? Remember those? Love ya {=}
MO, I'm not remembering any specific clause in the Bill of Rights that "guarantees" us guys the Right to a Blowjob. I'll study the constitution further and see what I can come up with. The Right to an Abortion was not "guaranteed" either, but was provided years after the U.S. Constitution was written by judicial fiat in the Supreme Court Case of Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the "opinion" of the Court.

Perhaps, this is worthy of a post! I want my constitutional right to have a blowjob on demand!


TTigerAtty 62M

7/7/2006 10:53 am

    Quoting sillyperv:
    Yeah, I'd agree with that. Inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Though I'd keep the separation of Church and State - for the health and welfare of both. I think it would work. It's not asking anyone to perform their spiritual rituals - just to take a moment to acknowledge their thoughs before the start of the day - mine would have been Suzie Smoltz's breasts - but to each their own.

    Azzurri vs Les Bleus. Cannavarro vs Zidane! Toni vs Thuram. Buffon vs Barthez. Countries stopped and rivited and waiting to explode. It just doesn't get any better.
silly - There would have been days in school when I would have been watching the gals vs. bowing my head reverently in prayer! I would have thanked God for the opposite sex! Sounds like you're getting pumped for the BIG MATCH! Good luck to Italy!


LilSquirt_4mfm 67M/67F
3394 posts
7/7/2006 2:01 pm


that's nice TT ... thanking god and all for me ..... oops, ....i meant for "the opposite sex"

oh, TT, to let you know, i posted the official Today British Muslim Leanings Poll results on my Terrorism post. I wont post it here as your blog is not directly terrorism oriented as my The ♥QUR'AN♥ - MuhamMAD's Blatant MEIN KAMPF post is.


TTigerAtty 62M

7/7/2006 2:47 pm

Norman,

Thanks again for taking the time to post a great, throughtful comment above! I knew you had much to say on this subject based upon past conversations.

So for you and others who will read this comment from me, please understand that I am searching for some appropriate position which simultaneously addresses several problems which I perceive in our society. You as well as other thoughtful and reasonable people may not even agree with me that the problems I perceive are even problems.

What are those problems that I perceive with our society as they pertain to Freedom of Religious Expression? Here they are:

1. Driving Certain Religions (Christianity) Out of the Public Domain Without Providing For Some Other Means To Recognize and Respect The Fact That This Nation Was Founded Upon A Belief In Human Rights Granted By Our Creator (whether He be referred to as God, Allah, Yahweh, et al)

I think we have all seen the trends toward driving the concept of God out of the public domain. From my admittedly limited study and knowledge of American history, I currently understand and believe that our Founding Fathers sought to create a country that would not impose a nation state established religion upon all citizens, that would, however, permit and encourage the freedom of religious expression, and that would protect people who choose to worship in whatever manner they so choose.

Admittedly most public places in America will have Christian and Jewish symbols only. These are being removed from the landscape slowly and surely. The most recent case involves the removal of a huge cross at a war memorial in San Diego. For some reason, it was OK to create that war memorial after WWII with the cross, but today it is not (per the ACLU and the courts which have jurisdiction). The Ten Commandments comes from the Old Testament of the Holy Bible and is important to both Jews and Christians. Although these commandments form the basis for American law, they have been ordered removed in courthouses across the land. And I could go on and on about the removal of Christian and Jewish symbols, Bible verses, etc. across America.

My questions:

a. Why? Why have these symbols and reminders of faith, of God, now within just the past 30 years been seen to be so offensive to some, to the point they would seek removal via the courts? Who is really behind the people and groups and organizations that constantly bring these lawsuits that seek to drive God out of the public square? You think about it.

b. Why complete and total removal vs. inclusion of symbols of faith from other religions which have large members within the USA? I have never heard anyone stand up on behalf of the idea that we could merely be more inclusive of all religious groups in America and thereby avoid running afoul of the establishment clause, "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Those who seek to remove religious symbols are not interested in that possible solution. They seek to deny God and drive God out of the public domain.

2. Replacing Legitimate Monotheistic Religion(s) Which Has(Have) Historically Been Prominent in The Public Square With Another
"Religion" That Is Really An Ideology, That Of "Liberalism"

If you are a moderate or conservative in the USA, you know exactly what I mean. If you are a liberal, you will deny it and call be an extremist, neo-con. Great! Pour it on!

Quoting from Ann Coulter's New York Times Bestseller, 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism' ... "Liberals love to boast that they are not 'religious', which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course, Liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion'."

To fully understand her assertion, it is necessary to read the entire book from cover to cover. I suggest that you do. If I get time, I may post a separate comment with various points that support her assertion, and mine too, that "God-based religion has been and is being replaced with Godless religion in the public domain".

You think about it. You think about the long-term implications for this great country.

My questions:

a. Why are still non-proven theories of evolution, "Darwinianism", taught in public school classrooms as absolute, irrefutable fact and no mention can be made by law of the more scientifically provable theory of "creationism"?

b. Why do we teach our youngsters how to put a condom on a banana and teach them about anal sex, but cower to the demands of the ACLU when any proposal is made to teach them morals, perhaps The Ten Commandments, or perhaps a course in The Great Religions of the World?

c. Why do we, as Americans, allow the establishment of Liberalism as the state religion by allowing them to take control of our children in government schools, where textbooks have been rewritten to promote the liberal agenda and liberal ideas, to advance still scientifically unproven theories of evolution while altogether denying "creationism" as an alternate theory?

d. Why do we, as Americans, stand by and allow elected officials to stack our courts with liberal judges who believe in concepts like the "living constitution" (meaning they'll interpret it the way they want to) and render decisions favorable to the liberal agenda which is to achieve a complete separation a church and state in every sense of the word, completely, totally and 100% Godless.? Look at the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment again and read it closely: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" By the inclusion of God in the public domain through symbols, mere mention in pledges of allegiance to the flag, and teaching of an alternate theory of how we got here, "creationism", we certainly have not even approached "establishment of religion or a religion" and we have certainly never "prohibited any person in this country from worshipping or practicing religion as they so choose"!

e. How have we strayed this far during the past 40 years? Oh, wait a minute, Norman and others! I think I know the answer to that question!

It's time for America to quit turning its back on God. Its time for this country to quit denying the existence of God, especially when a great majority of our population believes in a Higher Power (and I don't mean The Supreme Court either). It is time for America to "strictly enforce" the Constitution of the United States of America with regard to freedom of religious expression. It is time for America to embrace, honor and respect people of faith, people of all faiths! Instead of cowering before the dictates of the ACLU, liberal court judges and a Godless religion called Liberalism, it is time for Americans to assert loudly and clearly that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Norman, how can we reconcile some very good points of caution you have offered with my concerns? Tell me why I'm wrong or tell me why my ideas would create unintendend consequences that would be detrimental to America.


m1903a3 59M

7/7/2006 6:17 pm

Can't think of anything new to add.
We think so much alike, it's scary.
We could be twins, except I'm a lot better looking.


LilSquirt_4mfm 67M/67F
3394 posts
7/7/2006 9:55 pm

hiya m

dont you ever tell TT i said this ......or your cut off ......... but u r the better looking one.....shhhh


QueenOfSwords 34F

7/10/2006 4:04 am

I posted an item on religion and you may wish to comment.

[post 418067]


DrLoveEsoterica 62M
219 posts
7/15/2006 9:48 pm

So what's happened to our friend TTiger? I've been gone for a few weeks on vacation and upon my return I find he has disappeared from my watched list and he has apparently deleted his profile. Somebody put out a hit on him?

Doc


MillsShipsGayly 51M

7/17/2006 6:45 am

TTiger .. where did ya go??

The below is in response to your comments tht liberalism is a mental disorder ... thought it was well written:

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Traditionally, what was meant by "liberty" was the freedom of each individual to do as they pleased, provided they did not infringe on the liberty of others. This is often called classical liberalism. Another form of liberalism, often called social liberalism, holds that freedom requires what is sometimes called a "level playing field", that for people to be free they must be free from the unequal power of those born to wealth and high social status. Attempts to level the playing field include anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, affirmative action, and progressive taxation. A third form of liberalism, now almost universal in liberal democracies, holds that the government should provide for the general welfare. This sometimes includes a dole for the poor, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick, all supported by taxes. Classical liberals often strongly object to this kind of liberalism, asserting that the freedom of private property takes precedence over the personal freedom that depends on health, education, and a place to live; they claim that private charity does the job as well, or even better.

Classical liberals seek a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on coercive power, especially of government and religion, the rule of Constitutional law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government. Modern liberals advocate a government in which the rights of minorities are protected. [2] In modern society, classical and social liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and equal opportunity. [3].

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum.

A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties.


LilSquirt_4mfm 67M/67F
3394 posts
7/17/2006 2:09 pm


He's gone

OH NO!!! .... Checked, and he's not hiding under jessica on my blog .....I fear the Libs GOT him.


tried to tell him that they were capable of doing that, but he wouldnt listen.

LilJessicaSQuirt
My ♥§ΩuirT♥er & MFM Blog


LilSquirt_4mfm 67M/67F
3394 posts
10/12/2006 10:41 pm

oh ... they didnt get u?????

whew, bin a tough few months ... thot the libs had done ya in

good to see that smilin face again!!!!

J.


keithcancook 60M
17718 posts
11/16/2006 6:07 pm

Go Tigers!

Blog On!


Become a member to create a blog