4 Questions

[Sonart]

Mr.V -- you ever read the 1st amendment? Do you know what it says?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...

In 1954, Congress made a law establishing religion into the Pledge of Allegiance. Sounds like a pretty straight forward violation of the Constitition to me, Mr.V, don't you think?

Yeah, sure. (Teacher wearing crucifix) Why? See the part about "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This was the toughest one for me, but they do represent the government and their students are compelled to be there. Could a teacher wear a Swastika on their neck? After all, they certainly have the Constitutional right to do so anywhere else. Can a private business fire you for publically saying things detrimental to the mission of the company?

Yeah, sure.(county Christmas pageant) See the part about "peaceably assembling."

It's not about peaceably assembling, it's about government establishing a religion and therefore should never have been brought before the voters in the first place. I assume there are non-Christian taxpayers in the county. Have the local Kiwanas and Elks Lodge sponsor the pageant, on private property, and you're good to go.

Congress passes a law stating that the Epicaplian Religion is the offical US Religion.

Dang those Epicaplians anyway. :) I assume this was not meant to be a serious question.

It depends upon the policy of town X regarding use of city equipment.(for the Mosque) If town X allows the local mosque to use the equipment (on whatever terms), then town X had better allow the local chapter of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (or the local synagogue, church, Kiwanis, masonic temple, etc.) to use the same equipment on the same terms.

There it is. If government can't support religion, then it can't support religion, no matter how innocently.

[sixmillman]

There it is. If government can't support religion, then it can't support religion, no matter how innocently

If U S Government assets cannot be used to support domestic displays of religion, why do we allow government funds to support religious ideologies overseas?

[Sonart]

Good question.

[Compugasm]

It depends upon the policy of town X regarding use of city equipment.(for the Mosque) If town X allows the local mosque to use the equipment (on whatever terms), then town X had better allow the local chapter of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (or the local synagogue, church, Kiwanis, masonic temple, etc.) to use the same equipment on the same terms.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this is worded. The mosque, or church, isn't a city building. It's private property, so they don't have to let anyone use it. This Detriot News article is about the most calm discussion of the basic points.

The call to prayer is 5x a day and it's 1m:30sec long. Here'san audio loop. At first I thought they were making a big deal out of nothing. But now I see why people have a problem with it.

They liken the call to prayer with church bells. But in the articles I've read about this, they don't mention how often church bells ring. They also don't mention how many churchs actually, or still, even ring bells. Or how loud any of these things are. The ACLU does support reasonable efforts by the government to accommodate religious expression.

[mrmufin]

On teachers wearing a crucifix:

Originally posted by Sonart,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sonart,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This was the toughest one for me, but they do represent the government and their students are compelled to be there.[/b]

Yes, the students are compelled to be there and, yes, the public schools are government funded institutions. However, I simply do not equate a teacher wearing a crucifix with an establishment of religion. More specifically, I see a greater Constitutional infringement, namely "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", by prohibiting teachers from wearing symbols of their faith. Additionally, I base my response on the result of the actions taken by the school board where the very lovely msmufin is employed, which prohibited the display of (among other things) the Confederate flag by both students and employees in the district. It didn't take long for the policy to result in a lawsuit.

My response also weighed some practical concerns which are easy to overlook in an attempt to establish dress policies in school districts or other government institutions. What if the symbol of faith was a tattoo, and not so easy to remove? What about private sector contractors (food services, custodial services, etc.) employed by the school district? Would they be compelled to adhere to the same policy? What about the folks who work at other government agencies, such as Social Security or Motor Vehicle services? Should they be subjected to the same prohibitions because they're government employees? Personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of individual liberty, which, in the US, includes allowing persons to wear symbols of their faith.

Originally posted by Sonart,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sonart,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Could a teacher wear a Swastika on their neck? After all, they certainly have the Constitutional right to do so anywhere else.[/b]

I'd (rather grudgingly) say, "yes."

<!--QuoteBegin-Sonart,@
Can a private business fire you for publically saying things detrimental to the mission of the company?[/quote]
I'd say it depends on the situation. It is not uncommon for private enterprise employers to require that employees sign company covenants and/or non-disclosure agreements which may involve employees limiting certain rights.

On the Christmas pageant:
<!--QuoteBegin-Sonart,
It's not about peaceably assembling, it's about government establishing a religion and therefore should never have been brought before the voters in the first place.[/quote]
Agreed; with certain qualifications. First, I took Mr V's original question at face value: the voters had already voted, and I just continued from there. But again, I'm not sure that hosting a Christmas pageant equates to "establishment of religion"; at least not in any strict sense. I do agree that it never should have been a ballot issue to start with, and more importantly, the pageant should not preclude Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc., from participating in the event, should they so choose to.

Of course, these are my opinions; your mileage may vary. All are responses to (presumably) hypothetical situations and I'm not so stubborn as to rule out a change in my opinions should a better case trump my logic. I don't equate government employees wearing symbols of their faith with establishment of religion, and generally speaking, I see policies which try to limit such displays as pesky and meddlesome.

Regards,
mrmufin

[mrmufin]

Originally posted by Compugasm, Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this is worded. The mosque, or church, isn't a city building. It's private property, so they don't have to let anyone use it.

My point was simply that it's up to the town to set their policies regarding use of the public address system, and to apply the policy without preference to any organization. If the policy of the town is to use the equipment solely for city sponsored events, then, no, the local mosque, church, Kiwanis, etc., should figure out an alternative way to meet their needs. As to whether the call to prayer creates a public disturbance is a matter best addressed by local ordinances, not the US Constitution.

Regards,
mrmufin

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Gorgo, you ever read the 1st amendment? Do you know what it says? Obviously not.

The application of the first amendment in these cases is not that clear.

Example - I feel the religious observences should be sponsored by the religious institutions and not units of government. There should by no limits on the expression of religion in the USA, but the government should not sponsor or support a religion. I would have a distinct problem with Episcaplian being the state religion.

[PhanthomOps]

Sonart:
Quote: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...
In 1954, Congress made a law establishing religion into the Pledge of Allegiance. Sounds like a pretty straight forward violation of the Constitution to me, Mr.V, don't you think?”

God – defined: “the supreme or ultimate reality;, the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe;, a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship:
Merriam Webster’s Deluxe Dictionary – Tenth Collegiate Edition – Reader’s Digest – New York 1998.

The word God is generic in use. Ask an Italian and you might get “Padre Celeste”, ask a Muslim and you would get “Allah”, ask a Hebrew and you might get “Yahweh”, ask a Christian you could get “King of Kings & Lord of Lords” or “Lord of Hosts” or “Potentate”, ask someone who believe in Norse mythology you would get Odin, Greek mythology would be Zeus.

Since the founding of this country, the free belief and practice of whatever religion you believed in was integral in our development.

George Washington:“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. .let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Thomas Jefferson:“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?”

John Adams:
"It must be felt that there is no national security but in the nation's humble acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence."

Benjamin Rush:
“The only foundation for…a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

Patrick Henry:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

mrmufin:
Quote: “Yes, the students are compelled to be there and, yes, the public schools are government funded institutions.”

IMHO, the money is allocated by the government after they receive the taxes from the citizens

Sonart:
Quote: “It's not about peaceably assembling, it's about government establishing a religion and therefore should never have been brought before the voters in the first place.”


Pray tell, in what way is the government establishing a religion?? Are there government directives as to:
1) on what day are regular services to be held?
2) at what time services begin and for how long they last?
3) what hymns are to be sung and at what times of the year?
4) what are the Holy Scriptures?
5) the qualifications of the rabbi, priest or pastor?
6) where the church structure is to be built, and its’ architecture?
7) what are the tenants of faith?
8) what are the salary and benefits that should be offered to the rabbi, priest or pastor?
9) what the Sunday school subjects are that should be taught
10) what the sacraments are to be?
11) etc.

Might I suggest that you get a grip on reality??

Shunyadragon:
Quote: “. There should by no limits on the expression of religion in the USA, but the government should not sponsor or support a religion.”

Please see above.

[Sonart]

The word God is generic in use. Ask an Italian and you might get “Padre Celeste”, ask a Muslim and you would get “Allah”, ask a Hebrew and you might get “Yahweh”, ask a Christian you could get “King of Kings & Lord of Lords” or “Lord of Hosts” or “Potentate”, ask someone who believe in Norse mythology you would get Odin, Greek mythology would be Zeus.

Ask a Taoist, a Confusionist, an animist, a Buddhist (although Shunya and I will likely argue about the defenition of God) or an Atheist and you likely won't get any answer at all. All you've done is name some deist faiths and said, 'See? They all believe in God'.

Since the founding of this country, the free belief and practice of whatever religion you believed in was integral in our development.

Indeed. Therefore it is incumbant that no religion or group of religions be promoted over others by the state.

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?”

Good for Tom and the rest of them. However, I am an American citizen equal in the eyes of the Constitution to any one of those gentlemen and not only do I disagree, but it's my right to disagree and my right not to have THEIR beliefs imposed on me.

Pray tell, in what way is the government establishing a religion?? Are there government directives as to:

Completely disingenuous, PO, a pack of strawmen. No one has claimed disagreement to ANY of those things you listed, only that a government cannot promote one faith over another. No one has said a single word about what one may or may not do in church, their home or on their own time, how they define their own faith or anything else you mentioned.

Pray tell, in what way is the government establishing a religion??

Creating an event that promotes and celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Christian faith.

[m3talsmith]

I am a teacher, I wear a crucifix on my necklace.

Allow Yes/No? Yes
Why? Because you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on other peoples right (ie. stab someone with your cross for know reason).

The voters of County X vote to hold a Christmas Pagent sponsored by the town of XX.
All funds are raised by bake sales and the proceeds go to the local orphange.

Alllow Yes/No? Yes
Why? Because you raised the funds yourself and, since no one else helped, it's non of their business.

Congress passess a law stating that the Epicaplian Religion is the offical US Religion.

Allow Yes/No? No
Why? Because you have freedom of religion in this country; because it is unconstitutional, there is a seperation of Church and State; because I don't want anyone telling me to go to church if I don't want to.

The town of X allows the local Mosque to use city equipment to make the call to prayer.

Allow Yes/No? Yes
Why? Only if it is a service the city provides, and only if it's not exclusive to the Mosque. I think cities should be free to use their property as they wish, provided that it's not being used to infringe on other peoples right (see answers to questions 1 and 3).

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Gorgo, 3) That would be cool. We'd see how many politicians would become Episcopalian. 4) A town is not a church and is not in the business of promoting religion.

These two answers, and probably answer one, are in conflict with each other: unless answer 3 was a sarcastic answer.

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Allan, roxdog, you accuse (finger pointing) a lot, what was Hitler incorrect about? Sandy, you are a breath of fresh truthful air, thanks. Dr. Revilo P. Oliver said Christianity was a disease of the brain and from all appearances Christians today have no brain at all. http://www.revilo-oliver.com/ http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/o.../Oliverbio.html

This coming from an unregistered user? Come one, this is too rich.

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Gorgo, A teacher is an employee of the state. This is not a freedom of speech issue, but a separation of church and state issue.

I think you misread your copy of the constitution. In plain english it states that the government is not allowed to dictate anything pertaining to religion. That does not mean that because you are a state employee that you cannot take part in religious acts or symbolism. It means that the government cannot tell you that you can't take part in religious acts or symbolism.

For instance the government not allowing the school teacher to wear a cross because it is a religious symbol would be a violation of this constitutional clause.

[Sonart]

I think you misread your copy of the constitution. In plain english it states that the government is not allowed to dictate anything pertaining to religion. That does not mean that because you are a state employee that you cannot take part in religious acts or symbolism.

Nor can you use the authority of the government to promote religion.

And again, would you allow your child's teacher to wear a swastika around their neck?

[PhanthomOps]

Sonart:
Quote: "Ask a Taoist, a Confusionist, an animist, a Buddhist (although Shunya and I will likely argue about the defenition of God) or an Atheist and you likely won't get any answer at all. All you've done is name some deist faiths and said, 'See? They all believe in God'.

Yes, but by what name???

Quote: "Indeed. Therefore it is incumbant that no religion or group of religions be promoted over others by the state."

Absolutely correct - so tell me what particular religion is being promoted here and on what basis??

Quote: "Good for Tom and the rest of them. However, I am an American citizen equal in the eyes of the Constitution to any one of those gentlemen and not only do I disagree, but it's my right to disagree and my right not to have THEIR beliefs imposed on me."

You most definately have the right to be an Atheist or an outer Mongolian priest if you so deisre, and you havent mentioned that someone was attempting to cram their particular religion down your throat. However, my reason for using those quotes was to explain that the belief in God did not just pop up when the Congress of the United States voted to put "Under God" in our pledge or "In God We Trust" on our currency.

Quote: "Completely disingenuous, PO, a pack of strawmen. No one has claimed disagreement to ANY of those things you listed, only that a government cannot promote one faith over another."

So, again I ask you what religion is our government promoting over another, and more to the point is our government proposing a "state" religion???

m3talsmith:

Thank you, Thank you. Especially as you are a teacher, your bring intelligent reasoning to this issue. :) :)

Sonart:
Quote: "Nor can you use the authority of the government to promote religion. And again, would you allow your child's teacher to wear a swastika around their neck?"

Well, let's see how far freedom of speech and religion go. I periodically see some young people wearing t-shirts, sweatshirts and jackets with "swastikas" and other neo-nazi emblems on them. Do I personally like it - NO WAY IN HELL!!!!! - do they have the right to wear it - Absolutely yes, irregardless of what I or anyone else thinks.

Here's one for you. As a DAV (USAF) this is my silent way of actually voicing my extreme displeasure with Americans who look down on our military and our veterans, and in essence I am daring someone to come up to me and pi-- and moan.

I have a black baseball cap, with a U.S. Air Force Veteran patch on the front. I have placed 23 various military and organizational pins on the cap. I wear it every day, and sometimes people come up to me and say thank you, others moan as they pass by. However, so far no one has had the guts to come up to me and complain.

[Sonart]

Yes, but by what name???

God. Muslims - "God is Great", Italians - "Dio", Christians - "God", Jews - "God". You can come up with all the variations you want: our Lord, Heavenly Father, whatever, it's still God.

Oh, and your use of a dictionary definition is hilarious... did you expect them to define the word 'God' with the word 'God'?

Absolutely correct - so tell me what particular religion is being promoted here and on what basis??

The Constitution doesn't say a "particular religion". It says "religon".... ANY religion.

So, again I ask you what religion is our government promoting over another, and more to the point is our government proposing a "state" religion???

Those religions that worship God, as opposed to those I listed - and any that I didn't - that don't worship God.

Well, let's see how far freedom of speech and religion go. I periodically see some young people wearing t-shirts, sweatshirts and jackets with "swastikas" and other neo-nazi emblems on them. Do I personally like it - NO WAY IN HELL!!!!! - do they have the right to wear it - Absolutely yes, irregardless of what I or anyone else thinks.

So what, PO, that wasn't my question. My question was would you allow your child's >TEACHER< to wear one?

I have a black baseball cap, with a U.S. Air Force Veteran patch on the front.

Cool. So?

[PhanthomOps]

Sonart:
Quote: "The Constitution doesn't say a "particular religion". It says "religon".... ANY religion."

So again I ask what religion is our government propigating???

Quote: "Those religions that worship God, as opposed to those I listed - and any that I didn't - that don't worship God."

The word God is used to describe the deity that anyone chooses to worship by whatever name. It does not intend as you think to single out any one religion, or deny the existance of any others. In-as-much as you do not believe in God in the traditional sense, you have become the god of your existense. Ergo the word God still fits.

Quote: "So what, PO, that wasn't my question. My question was would you allow your child's >TEACHER< to wear one?"

I thought you would be able to conclude my feelings from my answer, to include anyone.

My Quote: "Do I personally like it - NO WAY IN HELL!!!!! - do they have the right to wear it - Absolutely yes, irregardless of what I or anyone else thinks."

"QUOTE PO:
I have a black baseball cap, with a U.S. Air Force Veteran patch on the front."

Your Answer: "Cool. So?"

I'm just waiting for someone to come up to me and complain.

[Gorgo]

Ya think? maybe hmmm?

Originally posted by m3talsmith, These two answers, and probably answer one, are in conflict with each other: unless answer 3 was a sarcastic answer.

[Gorgo]

A teacher is an employee of the state. The state is not in the business of promoting religion. The courts have ruled that the state cannot promote a particular religion. A cross is a symbol of Christianity.

I don't know what the court would rule, it just would be consistent.

That teacher can wear whatever or say whatever that teacher wants outside the school. As an employee of the state, that teacher is limited by the Constitution.

Originally posted by m3talsmith,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (m3talsmith,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Gorgo, A teacher is an employee of the state.  This is not a freedom of speech issue, but a separation of church and state issue.

I think you misread your copy of the constitution. In plain english it states that the government is not allowed to dictate anything pertaining to religion. That does not mean that because you are a state employee that you cannot take part in religious acts or symbolism. It means that the government cannot tell you that you can't take part in religious acts or symbolism.

For instance the government not allowing the school teacher to wear a cross because it is a religious symbol would be a violation of this constitutional clause.[/b][/quote]

[Sonart]

The word God is used to describe the deity that anyone chooses to worship by whatever name. It does not intend as you think to single out any one religion, or deny the existance of any others. In-as-much as you do not believe in God in the traditional sense, you have become the god of your existense. Ergo the word God still fits.

We're getting nowhere on this.

--"The word God is used to describe the deity that anyone chooses to worship by whatever name."--

Correct. The deity that anyone who >worships a deity< chooses to worship by whatever name, thus EXCLUDING anyone who does NOT believe in any diety by any name. As to whether I've become the god of my existance, that's your opinion, which I reject totally. At least as far as YOU have defined it...

--"God – defined: “the supreme or ultimate reality;, the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe;, a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship:"