Separation Of Church and State

[Genesis315]

MikeinSD:

And I also believe that “freedom of religion” means “freedom from religion.”

Except that by making people deny God in the classroom (whether through godless evolution, acceptability of homosexuality and contraception, whatever), the atheist or hedonist religion is being forced on us.

The first amendment was designed to protect religion from the state, not the other way around (as it is interpreted now).

 

[philipmarus]

I’ll take a State Church over 45 million Abortions anyday.

 

[Genesis315]

philipmarus:

I’ll take a State Church over 45 million Abortions anyday.

 

[ShockleyHaynes]

philipmarus:

I’ll take a State Church over 45 million Abortions anyday.

I hope you’ll enjoy when your civic freedoms are denied, along with others’, as much as you’ll enjoy having a legislative body that is indifferent to its population.

 

[philipmarus]

I hope you’ll enjoy when your civic freedoms are denied, along with others’, as much as you’ll enjoy having a legislative body that is indifferent to its population.

This is nothing but conformity. Gee I guess just stepped on a sacred cow or something.

You bet I prefer Life . Keep the clean City parks with nobody in them and I’ll take roads with potholes and 45 million more people walking on them.The American Rule of Law is nothing more than what Majority of U.S Senate Judiciary Committee members thinks it should be. If Freedom means that reading Romans 1-2 on Canadian radio will land you in Jail, it needs to be re-evaluated.
The 5th Amendment is susposed to protect “Life, Liberty and Property” . Notice it lists Life first. Here in Oklahoma we had a girl
that gave birth drunk after drinking two cases of beer. The State threw her in Jail for Child Neglect. However, I am sure she could have had a Partial Birth Abortion instead with full legal blessing and two thumbs up from the “Pro-Choice people.”

I recommend:

THE AMERICAN MYTH OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
by Kenneth R. Craycraft

And the Encyclicals Pope Leo XIII on the Americanist Heresy
Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae

 

[AnAtheist]

Brad:

Why is it that alternative to evolutionary theory cannot be taught as possiblities in the school?

It is because most of those alternatives are not scientific. Lamarck’s (mostly disregarded) theory e.g. is scientific and it is taught or at least mentioned in schools (over here that is).
A creation myth can be teached in history, anthropology, or literature classes, but not in a biology curriculum.

 

[Quo_Vadis]

“separation of church and state” was a phase invented in the early part of the last century to pervert the meaning of the 1st amendment.

 

[pnewton]

“separation of church and state” was a phase invented in the early part of the last century to pervert the meaning of the 1st amendment.

I always heard it was coined by Thomas Jefferson who spoke of it as a wall of separation between Church and State.

PS (edited) - I found it:

*I contemplate with sovereign reverence 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. *

Thomas Jefferson - 1802

 

[AnAtheist]

“separation of church and state” was a phase invented in the early part of the last century to pervert the meaning of the 1st amendment.

Actually, the idea came up shortly after the 30year war (1618-1648). During that war between Catholic and Protestant forces Germany and other parts of central Europe were totally devastated, even more than after WWII. After that people began thinking that political and religious power should better be separated. Look at Northern Ireland or Lebanon to see what a mix of political and religious power can do.

 

[buffalo]

philipmarus:

I’ll take a State Church over 45 million Abortions anyday.

How about a Catholic monarchy? Or a Catholic Republic?

 

[Wildgraywolf]

**From the Bill of Rights…

---

Amendment I

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.

The whole idea of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people from the government. One of the intentions of the 1st. Amendment is to prevent the federal government from establishing or creating a “state religion”.

The hyper-liberal way this “seperation of church and state” is interpreted serves to “prohibit the free exercise” of ones religion; does it not?

 

[trogiah]

The original post quoted a student in Arizona. I think it is worth noting that Arizona is one state and their laws are not everyone’s laws. For example, teachers in Arizona are prohibited, by law, from speaking to students in any language other than English. Arizona, does not recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day as most of the rest of the country does.

For comparison, consider the following from the laws governing teachers in Washington State

“It shall be the duty of all teachers to endeavor to impress on the minds of their pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, temperance, humanity, and patriotism; to teach them to avoid idleness, profanity and falsehood; to intruct them in the principles of free government, and to train them up to the true comprehension of the rights, duty and dignity of American citizenship.” RCW 28A.405.030

A copy of this hangs in my classroom and I refer to it when I try to correct students on their their behavior and they say, “You can’t tell us to try and be ‘good’, thats like teaching us religion.”

I can say, the state not only allows me to, it requires me to.

For the record, I don’t believe Faith should ever (or can ever) be imposed by a political authority so I guess I do believe in a measure of “seperation of church and state” That doesn’t mean ethical behavior - should not be encouraged and required as much as possible. The RCW probably doesn’t get it perfectly but it seems to strike a pretty good balance.

peace

-Jim

 

[D_Quintero]

Again, with no separation, religion will become corrupt.
But with TOTAL separation, religion will have no voice and be silenced out. Today it’s like religion is a bad word. Not to be said for fear of offending people. It has even come down to this horror!!!

People for total separation, would it be wise to remove the names of cities who have a Saint as a name? San Antonio, San Francisco, San Diego, St Louis, etc.
Doesn’t it violate sep of church and state to have a religious name for a secular city? If you deny, how can you say you want **total **separation.

“at McKinley high school in Honolulu, an official school poem has been recited on ceremonial occasions since 1927. One of the lines mentions a love for God. ACLU came and banned the poem. A 75 year tradition dissolved within weeks. This is Tragic insanity!!!-- !!!-- from Bill O’ Reilly’s book who’s looking out for you? Not the ACLU

 

[D_Quintero]

ALSO, Religion has not caused the most wars!! Religion and war

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trogiah:

For comparison, consider the following from the laws governing teachers in Washington State

“It shall be the duty of all teachers to endeavor to impress on the minds of their pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, temperance, humanity, and patriotism; to teach them to avoid idleness, profanity and falsehood; to intruct them in the principles of free government, and to train them up to the true comprehension of the rights, duty and dignity of American citizenship.” RCW 28A.405.030

Just curious… Does your state define “principles of morality” or is that up to the moral convictions of individual teachers?

 

[Chazemataz]

Church and State should remain as seperate as possible. Also, doing any kind of witchcraft in public schools should be against the law. I believe it is. Please, make them remain seperate, Bush. I want to belong to a FREE Country. It IS america after all. If I have any say in it, the connections between Church and State will be ANNIHILATED! We will have the oh-so-touchy atheists screaming " Oh no! The word “God” is in the pledge! Oh no! It BURNS!" and “Uh oh, the Ten Commandments! MY EYES! MY EYES!!!”. Please, God, I pray make Your True Church here on Earth as seperate as possible from the State.

 

[buffalo]

Chazemataz:

Church and State should remain as seperate as possible. Also, doing any kind of witchcraft in public schools should be against the law. I believe it is. Please, make them remain seperate, Bush. I want to belong to a FREE Country. It IS america after all. If I have any say in it, the connections between Church and State will be ANNIHILATED! We will have the oh-so-touchy atheists screaming " Oh no! The word “God” is in the pledge! Oh no! It BURNS!" and “Uh oh, the Ten Commandments! MY EYES! MY EYES!!!”. Please, God, I pray make Your True Church here on Earth as seperate as possible from the State.

Study history. As long as their are religious it is impossible completely remove it from public debate, which ultimately influences governement. In the end ask yourself what traditions do you want the US to follow?

 

[HOMEWARD-BOUND]

Matthew 22:20-21

and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Ceaser’s” they replied, Then he said to them "Give to Caeser what is Caeser’s and to God what is God’s

 

[Brad]

ShockleyHaynes:

I’m quoting your post out of order, but I would like to highlight the spirit of this paragraph to indicate that you and I share an ideal of education. As a future educator, on the collegiate level, I believe that no discipline operates as distinct from its fellow disciplines as the physical separation of academic departments suggests. I believe, in other words, that knowledge of astronomy belongs in the literature classroom—despite the fact that the Physics Department is not located physically in the Humanities building on a given campus.

Great!

ShockleyHaynes:

I don’t believe that this is so. I’ve known many people who, believing that God created the cosmos, immediately closed themselves to science that contradicted the ethics implied by the ten commandments.

Correct science never should contradict the ethics implied. That’s the point. If you want to teach evolution, fine. But don’t teach that evolution disproves God or that God did not create the human race. Also, do not teach parts of evolutionary theory as facts when they do not fit the definition of scientifc fact in an effort to force understanding of something we do not fully understand.

ShockleyHaynes:

The primary condition of inquiry, within the ethics of scientific rationality, draws conclusions based on observations. Further, the allowable observations are material observations. The existence of God is not a material observation; it is an interpretation or inference based on material observations. Often, it is an interpretation or inference desired by the person basing it on material observations. By the standards of inquiry required by scientific rationality, one cannot conclude “God” from grass.

Exactly. Science is limited. It does not explain everything nor can it. In fact, it cannot even explain most basic things such as gravity. It can put parameters and definitions on gravity but it cannot say where it comes from, when it started, or how to stop or creat it. It should be taught as if it is a subset of higher knowlege as there are things it cannot explain, yet still exist. A creator is responsible for those unexplainable things - this creator must have the higher set of knowledge.

ShockleyHaynes:

This is a whole different subject, and I will leave it alone, except to say: insofar as scientific rationality is insufficient to disprove the existence of God, it is also insufficient to prove the existence of God.

Correct. God has been revealed to us. By leaving out this revelation we limit our understanding of all subjects, including science.

ShockleyHaynes:

The difference between teaching the truths of God and evolutionary theory is that the truth of God requires experiential evidence that cannot be replicated in all circumstances, reliably. The process of natural selection—the part of evolutionary theory that is most reliable—however, is based upon observations that can be replicated in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. With respect to more ambivalent aspects of evolutionary theory, they should be taught honestly, with admission that they are theoretical extensions of knowledge that can be affirmed empirically.

What you are calling natural selection proves that species adapt within themselves over time. Not a problem. The giant leap that species become other species is a scientific problem and cannot be replicated or observed even once. This distinction is radically unclear in most public schools.

 

[Brad]

ShockleyHaynes:

I’m curious to know who “we” are. If you’re referring to the public education system, then I disagree that “we” have an obligation to teach spiritual truth. If you’re referring to a child’s primary education within the family and home, then I agree completely that such supports are necessary to raise a child responsibly.

So you think that we should not teach some philosophy, morality, metaphysics, or even science that contradicts evolutionary theory simply because some of these disciplines may agree with a relgious system of belief? You would classify all of these learning disciplines as “spirituality”?

Is it ok to teach morality, philosophy, or metaphysics that contradicts religous systems of belief? How does a child reconcile between 2 major contradictory educational influences?

ShockleyHaynes:

You can’t teach God for the same reason that you can’t teach beauty. Both experiences of God and beauty are subjective experiences, and neither can be “tested” in such a way that genuinely respects each student’s intelligence.

God is objective truth. He has been revealed to us. Spritual realities are equally as real as physical realities. You can respect the beliefs of all students by teaching basic ethics and values that come from the natural law of God. The natural law is good for all. The 10 commandments recognize natural law.

ShockleyHaynes:

Your impression that philosophy and ethics validate the existence of God suggests, to me, that you have not studied widely within them. Further, to use them as a means of checking scientific education is a prostitution of their spirits. Philosophy is a discipline for imaginative curiosity, combined with rationality; when it is expected to reveal “natural” conclusions, it is being practiced improperly.

1. I never said that philophy and ethics validate or prove God from a scientific perspective. I do suggest that they can point to God because they derive from Him.
2. Philosphy is absolutely a way to reveal conclusions. That’s it’s entire purpose.
3. Your inaccurate assessment of what I have said leads you to a false conclusion that criticizing my person will invalidate my argument. Sorry, won’t work.

ShockleyHaynes:

I would agree with your implied statement, if the word “incorrect” were substituted with “incomplete.” I don’t believe that incomplete information should be sought, as a goal; I believe that education should celebrate the linguistic root of the word “university,” and inspire universal awareness of life—in science, philosophy, the arts, and society. I don’t believe that this will be accomplished by the system we have now; however, I also don’t believe that it can be accomplished by any system. The attempt to systematize spiritual truth (such as the existence of God) and spiritual belief (such as Creationist cosmogony) will only bring those ideas down to the level of banality that most subjects in high school achieve for most teenagers. They will be perceived as obligations, disconnected from their emotional life, and will be disregarded.

This will be doubly true for those who do not believe in God to begin with—and whose unbelief is supported by shared unbelief at home.

Not sure at all what you mean here. Cater to only those who have unbelief (maybe 5% of the population). Only teach “complete” infomation (in which case we couldn’t teach anything)?

The reason most teenages see disconnect between what they learn and real life is because they are not taught foundationally and from the beginning what it is that they live, work, and learn for.

It is not that I think Christianity has to be taught throught the public schools. It is that those values that are consistent with Christianity should not be kept out of the public schools. Without them we have little.

One example - teaching kids that anything is possible if they set their minds to it - this is a Biblical concept. Some teach it but very very few.