Girl Prohibited From Singing Religious Song

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Sonart Of course there is, Chancellor. If Congress can make no law respecting an establishment "of religion" -- (it doesn't say "of a religion" or "of a state religion", it say "of religion") -- or the free excercise thereof, that doesn't leave much that Congress can do, does it? Congress can make no law regarding religion either way. And since the Federal Constistution trumps state and local constitutions, no state or local government can pass laws prohibited to Congress by the Federal Constitution. The founders simply didn't put it into the words "seperation of church and state" until a few years later. "that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." -- President Thomas Jefferson, 1802 .

Read the words of the amendment. It does not say there is a separation of church and state. The establishment of religion specifically referred ONLY to establishing an American equivalent of the Church of England and you so conveniently ignore the other part of that clause about Congress not being allowed to pass laws prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE of religion. Any time government tries to put limits on when or where someone can exercise his or her faith, that is an attempt to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Further, the founding fathers NEVER added "separation of church and state" to the Constitution. Further, what you quoted from Jefferson is not the Constitution and, even so, it does not say anything about government being prohibited from allowing manger scenes on the lawn at city hall or letting children sing Christmas carols in school or, in the case of this thread, allowing a little girl to sing a Christian song during a talent show. In other words, it doesn't say that religion must be kept out of the public square.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Starboy It doesn't say that. If it meant that then they would have written "an establishment of a state religion" since they were very much aware of such religions at the time. But they cast an even broader net. They didn't want the government to favor a particular religion they didn't want the government to favor any religion. And I am not ignoring the free exercise. You can build all the churches you want on private land till you all float to heaven for all I care. You just can't pick my pocket by getting the government involved in it. Sorry, no govenment support of religion. But I must say you are a bunch of whinny spoiled brats. You have more churches and more adherents of religion in the US than any other industrialized country in the world but that is not enough for you. For all I care you can all go to heaven this second. Starboy

It didn't neet to say "a state religion" to prohibit Congress from establishing a Church of the United States, since the individual STATES were essentially sovereign entities. Your interpretation (wrong as it is) suggests that the government is to be HOSTILE TOWARD RELIGION (as you obviously are). Your interpretation says that religious people MUST be denied the same PUBLIC rights that you non-religious folks seem to think you have. The Constitution does not, in any way whatsoever, restrict the FREE EXERCISE of religion. It doesn't say free exercise "only on private land" or "only out of earshot of Starboy." It is you anti-Christian people who are the whiny brats crying and complaining all the time because you heard someone mention God in a positive way or someone sang a religious song at a county fair or there was a manger scene in a public park. There is no freedom FROM religion, only freedom OF religion.

The religion clause in the first amendment means exactly and ONLY what it says and there is nothing in there keeping religion out of the public square.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Starboy This is what Webster's has to say about secularist: The first amendment is secularist. It must be indifferent to religion and reject any religion that would want congress to pass laws that respected any establishment of religion. When it comes to our government I am a secularist. If you cared about your own religious freedom you would be one too. It is stupid to assume that your particuar religion will always be in power. Just prior to the Constititution being created and enacted is was illegal to be a Baptist in some states. The first amendment keeps us free when it comes to religion because it does not allow any religious group to get the government to give it any kind of special treatment. Starboy

Indifferent does not mean hostile (you are quite obviously hostile toward religion and want our government to be). You want to prohibit the free exercise of religion anywhere except on private property (that government can come along and re-zone to prohibit religious exercise and you would be quite content with that). The religion clause is a two-pronged clause. The first part prohibits CONGRESS from establishing a religion (including putting religion into power; strangely "In God we trust" as a national motto establishes religion). It does not prohibit religion from having just as much a place in the public square as non-religion. It does not prohibit people of religion from having their views heard and reflected in the laws any more than it does people of no religion. While it does (because of the later amendment extending the federal proscriptions to the states, an amendment that should never have been passed because it took away the sovereignty of the states) prohibit schools from requiring students to pray, it does not prohibit students from praying openly on their own (despite the whines from your side that insist there cannot be the slightest hint of religion anywhere in public). Indifferent toward religion does not mean the SILENCING of religion.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Starboy A secularist is one who is secular. Everyone no matter what their religion is at one time or another in their life secular. It like saying that one cannot take everything in a religious way every second of one's life. A secular government is one that does not support nor restrict religion. That is exactly the way it must be if there is to be freedom of religion. You see at the time they wrote the constitution there were very much aware of the Church of England and the Vatican being a part of govenment and what sort of problems that this can cause for people of different faiths so in order for faith to be free the government must stay out of religion. It must be secular. Starboy

But YOU and your ilk would restrict religion. And, yes, we CAN (and must) take everything in a "religious way" every second of our lives (it's clear you don't have a clue about the nature of genuine Christian faith).

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Starboy There is nothing in the constition that states that the federal government has any power or responsiblity in educating the nation. The constition states that the states and the people reserve all rights that are not given to the federal government in the constitution. There are many people that think that our current federal government is unconstitutional because it has granted powers to itself not given to it in the constitution. Starboy

It's good to see we agree on something (I said in the post to which you responded that the federal involvement in education was unconstitutional). As for people who think our current federal government is unconstitutional, I am among those people.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: belverron I don't think this is something to be worried about. The United States is still in its pubescent stage with regard to this issue. It's only recently that it's been called into question, so we're awkward and, yes, making mistakes, but once all the trial-and-error testing is over, we'll have pretty much figured out the extent to which a display of religion is appropriate in a public setting.

Did you NOT read the first amendment. What part of the FREE EXERCISE (of religion) did you not understand? There are to be NO LIMITS on the exercise of religion. The other side of that coin, however, is that there cannot be what amounts to an official government religion.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: belverron This issue will become a lot less volatile when the Religious Right stops trying to cram religion into public schools. People feel threatened by both sides right now: the Right wants to protect (and expand, of course, which only exacerbates the problem) religious expression in public schools and the Left is just as bad, pointing fingers at every little thing. The principal, I'm sure, was just trying to protect his school from a lawsuit. Ironic twist, that, but probably so. Now, I think that the power to stop the nonsense is with the Right. It won't happen, either, because it would probably mean a fairly great sacrifice for a short period of time until people got over it and didn't bat an eye. That bit being said, I think it's a little suspicious that a kindergartener's favorite book is the Bible, no matter what his mother says. Then again, I suppose it would depend what story in the Bible and all. Time to go to bed *yawns*

Well, when leftists, atheists, and immoral people in general stop trying to prohibit the FREE EXERCISE of religion, then we might be able to come to some sort of mutual understanding.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Chancellor Read the words of the amendment. It does not say there is a separation of church and state.

Aw fer gawd's sake, Chancellor, how anal. Our government is composed of three branches: the Executive enforces the laws, the Judiciary interprets the laws, and Congress makes the laws. And if Congress can "make no law" either for or against religion, there's nothing else left.

And if the "Father of the Constitution" says that means a seperation of church and state, that's good enough for me.

--"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State"-- James Madison

--"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"-- James Madison

--"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together"-- James Madison

--"Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself"-- James Madison

Quote by: Chancellor The establishment of religion specifically referred ONLY to establishing an American equivalent of the Church of England...

The solution to which was to completely seperate government power from anything having to do with religion. The 1st Amendment doesn't say "a religion" or "a state religion", it says "of religion"... ANY religion.

Quote by: Chancellor ...and you so conveniently ignore the other part of that clause about Congress not being allowed to pass laws prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE of religion.

Who's ignoring? You are absolutely free to excercise your religion as you see fit, minus polygomy and human sacrifice. You are personally free to pray wherever you like, in any manner you like. If you want to pray at your desk at school or at work, pray to Oden, Vishnu, Buddha or the Great Otter Spirit, to attend the church, temple, Synagogue, Mosque or Coven of your choice, you're personally free to do so.

The >>>Government<<<, however, from Congress to your locally elected school board, can make no law that either advocates or restricts your PERSONAL FREE EXCERCISE of religion. That includes government sanctioned prayer in schools, installing religious tracts in our courtrooms or inserting a belief in God on our currency. Period!

Quote by: Chancellor It does not prohibit people of religion from having their views heard and reflected in the laws any more than it does people of no religion.

Yes, it does. Passing a city council resolution putting a cross on government land is a government establishment of religion and the Constitution says government can't do it. You want to put a cross on your private front lawn, that's your free expression.

Quote by: Chancellor Indifferent toward religion does not mean the SILENCING of religion.

If it's the government, yes, it means just that.

Quote by: Chancellor But YOU and your ilk would restrict religion.

No, only the government promotion of religion. No one's trying to restrict your personal freedom of religion, only your ability to use the government to impose your personal religion on everyone else.

Well, when leftists, atheists, and immoral people in general stop stop trying to prohibit the FREE EXERCISE of religion, then we might be able to come to some sort of mutual understanding.

Well, Chancellor, as long as people like you keep lumping anyone who doesn't agree with you as "immoral people", we have absolutely no chance of reaching a mutual understanding. So by all means, engage in your PERSONAL free excercise of religion, and thank God the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Courts have enforced the Constitution by refusing to allow the >>government<< to help you jam your intolerance down our throats.

.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Chancellor But YOU and your ilk would restrict religion.

My ilk? What ilk is that?

And, yes, we CAN (and must) take everything in a "religious way" every second of our lives (it's clear you don't have a clue about the nature of genuine Christian faith).

And you know what, if you actually supported one of the core values of the constitution, which is freedom, then you would be glad that people were not forced or required by government to know anything about any religion including Christianity. That it is impossible to have freedom if the government is indorsing and promoting any religion. The only position that the government can take in regards to religion if it is serious regarding religious freedom is not to comment about religion at all. Such expressions are for the individual. And such free expression is in abundance across our nation but for some reason this is not enough for the Christians. They now want the government to endorse their religion in particular but I guarantee that if the shoe was on another foot and the pledge said under Vishnu or one nation under Buddha they would be just as upset about it as atheists. But because it happens to favor their pet religion they think it is just peachy keen. It is yet another example of the dishonest double standard that just about all Christians practice in this country and you are no exception.

Starboy

[Gilligan]

If you don't like living in a free country, you should leave. Cause if this kid can sing Jesus Loves me, than don't bitch about it when your neighbors kid wants to sing about Buddah or Allah or whatever she worships in this free country.

[tinybear]

How about if she sings "Satan Is Our Saviour"?

[belverron]

Quote by: Me ...once all the trial-and-error testing is over, we'll have pretty much figured out the extent to which a display of religion is appropriate in a public setting.

Quote by: Chancellor Well, when leftists, atheists, and immoral people in general stop trying to prohibit the FREE EXERCISE of religion, then we might be able to come to some sort of mutual understanding.

You've misunderstood my position. I think that individuals should be able to make any religious expression they want. When I made that statement I was referring to things like school-sponsored religious messages and such.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: belverron You've misunderstood my position. I think that individuals should be able to make any religious expression they want. When I made that statement I was referring to things like school-sponsored religious messages and such.

No, I didn't misunderstand, your position is to silence this child who wanted to sing a religious song at a school talent show. Thus, you are denying the individual's absolute right to the free exercise of religion. The talent show is a school-sponsored event: your position is essentially that people of religion (including students) must check their faith at the door if they want to be allowed to participate.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: bandaid If you don't like living in a free country, you should leave. Cause if this kid can sing Jesus Loves me, than don't bitch about it when your neighbors kid wants to sing about Buddah or Allah or whatever she worships in this free country.

Actually, I don't have a problem if a kid in a school talent show wanted to sing about Buddah or Allah or Satan or any thing else religious, or about atheism or secular humanism or some other non-religious philosophy. I might have a problem if the kid wanted to sing about having sex and doing drugs or about going out and killing people or treating women like garbage, though.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tinybear How about if she sings "Satan Is Our Saviour"?

Fine.