On: October 3, 2009 at 4:40 a.m. FrankHallman wrote:
It only states in Article 3 of the Bill of Rights: "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.
Obviously, FrankHallman, you don't know the Constitution. There is no "Article 3 of the Bill of Rights." The text you supplied is the 1st Amendment, with its constitutional principle of the separation of government and religion.
High School football games are sponsored by, and funded by, the GOVERNMENT: The games are not for the exclusive purpose of proselytizing by ANY religious group.
(Contineud) On: October 1, 2009 at 2:26 p.m., truthspeaks wrote:
“It's not the cheerleaders who have broken any laws, but the state (school) for not allowing freedom to express their religious beliefs guaranteed in our constitution.”
True to a certain extent. However, the GOVERNMENT (school) is the entity that is liable for allowing GOVERNMENT-sponsored cheerleaders to promote a specific religion at a GOVERNMENT-sponsored event on GOVERNMENT property where taxpayer funds are used to pay for utilities–electricity, water, and possibly natural gas. The practice infringes upon the religious beliefs of those who do not adhere to the religious beliefs of the proselytizing cheerleaders.
On: October 1, 2009 at 2:26 p.m., truthspeaks wrote:
“People need to study our nations founding documents..”
Please include yourself in that list.
“NO WHERE in the Constitution of the United States or Declaration of Independence does it state anything about "division of church and state".”
The principle of the separation of government and religion can be found in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The point of the 1st Amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. (Such as allowing cheerleaders to proselytize a specific belief at a school (Government) function.) Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. (Hmm... Certainly seems like allowing cheerleaders to proselytize at a school (Government) function is promoting a particular religious doctrine.) This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church.
Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.
“This was a comment made by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Benjamin Franklin.”
False. Repeat your history class. The metaphor “wall of separation between church and state” was in a letter written by PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists assuring them the tyranny of the majority faith their religious beliefs as a minority. Jefferson used the phrase again a few years later in a speech. James Madison (the author of the 1st Amendment) also referred to the “total separation of government and religion” on several occasions
“On the contrary, the Constitution states that there will be NO LAW made which interferes with our religious beliefs and that government cannot interfere in our religious activites.”
I didn’t realize a public football game was a religious activity.
“For years in public schools the Holy Bible was the book used to teach children how to read.”
Only because secular reading primers had not yet been written. Besides, the bible is a poor choice to be used to teach children how to read. Have you really READ it? The sentence structure and grammar therein are atrocious!!
I didn't realize the 1st Amendment to the Constitution had been repealed.
"...when no laws are being broken. If the majority of the community have no issue with this practice and it is not breaking any laws then it miust be allowed. Remember the key words and tricky phrase is "not breaking any laws"
So, I guess you don't consider the U.S. Constitution to be law?
For those of you who falsely claim the 1st Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a "national" or "state" religion, consider this:
The plain words of the First Amendment say exactly what the First Congress meant for them to say. You change the words, which is the only way you can make the Establishment Clause say what you want it to say. The words "a state" are not in the wording of the Establishment Clause. It is "religion" which shall not be established by law or government, not just "a state" religion. If the meaning is plain, why add "a state"?
If the writers in the First Congress had meant to say "a state" religion, they would have written those words into the sentence. James Madison and the other five congressmen on the committee which drafted the final wording of the First Amendment knew the difference, and they wrote what they meant.
You also molest the Free Exercise Clause. The word "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause gets its entire meaning from the meaning of the Establishment Clause. If the Establishment Clause means "a state" religion, "thereof" must also mean "a state" religion, which would make the Free Exercise Clause read "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise of "a state religion." Yet, "a state religion" is just exactly what you say the Establishment Clause prohibits!
" 'In God We Trust' is everywhere in government buildings, not to mention our legal tender."
"In God We Trust" did not become our national motto until 1956, (due to McCarthyism and the Red Scare) and was not placed on currency until 1957. While the phrase was initially placed on some coins in 1864, it appeared sporadically on coins until the early 1900s.
"Heck, there's even a chaplain on the public payroll."
Yes, over the objections of James Madison, author of the 1st Amendment. It was the first violation of the 1st Amendment.
"The "separation of church and state" metaphor is a liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment - it's not law."
The Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ with you.
"Now, if the state of TN (or any other state) passed legislation that prohibited followers of certain religions from attending certain public schools or rezoned school districts for religious reasons, then one would have a violation of the 1st Amendment."
True, but that is not what is being done here. However, the reverse is true: When a Government entity promotes a specific religion (Christianity in ths case), it is also a violation of the 1st Amendment.
"If you follow the logic that these signs violate the 1st, one could then argue that a student wearing a crucifix on a chain around his or her neck would also be a violation of the Constitution."
Not so. Wearing a crucifix on a chain around one's neck is a personal choice. Your logic is, well, illogical.
"Or, that students can no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the word "God". I know...I know...they're trying."
Actually, students already have the right to NOT recite the pledge. The SCOTUS decided that way back in 1943, 11 years before the words "under God" were even illegally inserted into the official pledge when Congress passed a law respecting religion (also a result of McCarthyism and the Red Scare).
"He has a responsibility to educate the students. Let the complainant file suit and let the courts decide. If anything, it will be an educational lesson in civics."
Yes it will be. Especially when the school district looses.
"These girls aren't promoting a specific religion, neither is the school by allowing the signs. I'll point out that there are several, specific Christian denominations."
They are all still CHRISTIAN denominations: a SINGLE religion.
"The Supreme Court building has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments."
The Supreme Court building wasn't constructed until the 1930s, and there are other figures--all"lawgivers"--besides Moses. In addition, the actual words of the 10 Commandments can be found no where in the Supreme Court building.
"Congress are sworn in with their hand on a Bible, saying "so help me God".'
There is no REQUIRMENT for them to be sworn in on a Bible (in fact, one Congressman was recently sworn in on the Koran), nor are the words "so help me God" REQUIRED to be uttered.
On: September 29, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. rjn16 wrote: "Your logic that things can be "read into" the Constitution is exactly the kind of thinking that has screwed this country up. Anything not spelled out in the Constitution is left to the states, not made up by activitist judges and liberals who want the document to say whatever they would like it to. So, yes, I can argue against the Constitution saying everything you just pretended it says."
LOL. Its not what I pretend it says, it was what Thomas Jeffersons says it means, as well as what the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land, has said it means on numberous occassions. And, the 14th Amendment extended the principles spelled out in the Constitution to include the states. Separation of Government and religion is one of those principles.
On: September 29, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. mltoran wrote: "I would tend to agree with the thought that if it was a nonchristian phrase used on that sign every week there would be very few people protesting the ban."
As a strict separationist, I would be oppposed to any religious phrase, regardless of the religious sect. The government must neither prescribe nor proscribe a religious belief.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
On: October 3, 2009 at 4:40 a.m. FrankHallman wrote:
It only states in Article 3 of the Bill of Rights: "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.
Obviously, FrankHallman, you don't know the Constitution. There is no "Article 3 of the Bill of Rights." The text you supplied is the 1st Amendment, with its constitutional principle of the separation of government and religion.
High School football games are sponsored by, and funded by, the GOVERNMENT: The games are not for the exclusive purpose of proselytizing by ANY religious group.
Special spirit for Red Bank Middle cheerleader
This is a story about caring human beings showing empathy toward a fellow human being. Religion doesn't have anything to do with it.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
(Contineud) On: October 1, 2009 at 2:26 p.m., truthspeaks wrote:
“It's not the cheerleaders who have broken any laws, but the state (school) for not allowing freedom to express their religious beliefs guaranteed in our constitution.”
True to a certain extent. However, the GOVERNMENT (school) is the entity that is liable for allowing GOVERNMENT-sponsored cheerleaders to promote a specific religion at a GOVERNMENT-sponsored event on GOVERNMENT property where taxpayer funds are used to pay for utilities–electricity, water, and possibly natural gas. The practice infringes upon the religious beliefs of those who do not adhere to the religious beliefs of the proselytizing cheerleaders.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
On: October 1, 2009 at 2:26 p.m., truthspeaks wrote:
“People need to study our nations founding documents..”
Please include yourself in that list.
“NO WHERE in the Constitution of the United States or Declaration of Independence does it state anything about "division of church and state".”
The principle of the separation of government and religion can be found in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The point of the 1st Amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. (Such as allowing cheerleaders to proselytize a specific belief at a school (Government) function.) Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. (Hmm... Certainly seems like allowing cheerleaders to proselytize at a school (Government) function is promoting a particular religious doctrine.) This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church.
Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.
“This was a comment made by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Benjamin Franklin.”
False. Repeat your history class. The metaphor “wall of separation between church and state” was in a letter written by PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists assuring them the tyranny of the majority faith their religious beliefs as a minority. Jefferson used the phrase again a few years later in a speech. James Madison (the author of the 1st Amendment) also referred to the “total separation of government and religion” on several occasions
“On the contrary, the Constitution states that there will be NO LAW made which interferes with our religious beliefs and that government cannot interfere in our religious activites.”
I didn’t realize a public football game was a religious activity.
“For years in public schools the Holy Bible was the book used to teach children how to read.”
Only because secular reading primers had not yet been written. Besides, the bible is a poor choice to be used to teach children how to read. Have you really READ it? The sentence structure and grammar therein are atrocious!!
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
BaldEagle--
"...it is not a constitutional issue."
I didn't realize the 1st Amendment to the Constitution had been repealed.
"...when no laws are being broken. If the majority of the community have no issue with this practice and it is not breaking any laws then it miust be allowed. Remember the key words and tricky phrase is "not breaking any laws"
So, I guess you don't consider the U.S. Constitution to be law?
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
For those of you who falsely claim the 1st Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a "national" or "state" religion, consider this:
The plain words of the First Amendment say exactly what the First Congress meant for them to say. You change the words, which is the only way you can make the Establishment Clause say what you want it to say. The words "a state" are not in the wording of the Establishment Clause. It is "religion" which shall not be established by law or government, not just "a state" religion. If the meaning is plain, why add "a state"?
If the writers in the First Congress had meant to say "a state" religion, they would have written those words into the sentence. James Madison and the other five congressmen on the committee which drafted the final wording of the First Amendment knew the difference, and they wrote what they meant.
You also molest the Free Exercise Clause. The word "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause gets its entire meaning from the meaning of the Establishment Clause. If the Establishment Clause means "a state" religion, "thereof" must also mean "a state" religion, which would make the Free Exercise Clause read "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise of "a state religion." Yet, "a state religion" is just exactly what you say the Establishment Clause prohibits!
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
On: September 30, 2009 at 12:07 a.m. murph wrote:
" 'In God We Trust' is everywhere in government buildings, not to mention our legal tender."
"In God We Trust" did not become our national motto until 1956, (due to McCarthyism and the Red Scare) and was not placed on currency until 1957. While the phrase was initially placed on some coins in 1864, it appeared sporadically on coins until the early 1900s.
"Heck, there's even a chaplain on the public payroll."
Yes, over the objections of James Madison, author of the 1st Amendment. It was the first violation of the 1st Amendment.
"The "separation of church and state" metaphor is a liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment - it's not law."
The Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ with you.
"Now, if the state of TN (or any other state) passed legislation that prohibited followers of certain religions from attending certain public schools or rezoned school districts for religious reasons, then one would have a violation of the 1st Amendment."
True, but that is not what is being done here. However, the reverse is true: When a Government entity promotes a specific religion (Christianity in ths case), it is also a violation of the 1st Amendment.
"If you follow the logic that these signs violate the 1st, one could then argue that a student wearing a crucifix on a chain around his or her neck would also be a violation of the Constitution."
Not so. Wearing a crucifix on a chain around one's neck is a personal choice. Your logic is, well, illogical.
"Or, that students can no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the word "God". I know...I know...they're trying."
Actually, students already have the right to NOT recite the pledge. The SCOTUS decided that way back in 1943, 11 years before the words "under God" were even illegally inserted into the official pledge when Congress passed a law respecting religion (also a result of McCarthyism and the Red Scare).
"He has a responsibility to educate the students. Let the complainant file suit and let the courts decide. If anything, it will be an educational lesson in civics."
Yes it will be. Especially when the school district looses.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
On: September 30, 2009 at 12:07 a.m. murph wrote:
"These girls aren't promoting a specific religion, neither is the school by allowing the signs. I'll point out that there are several, specific Christian denominations."
They are all still CHRISTIAN denominations: a SINGLE religion.
"The Supreme Court building has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments."
The Supreme Court building wasn't constructed until the 1930s, and there are other figures--all"lawgivers"--besides Moses. In addition, the actual words of the 10 Commandments can be found no where in the Supreme Court building.
"Congress are sworn in with their hand on a Bible, saying "so help me God".'
There is no REQUIRMENT for them to be sworn in on a Bible (in fact, one Congressman was recently sworn in on the Koran), nor are the words "so help me God" REQUIRED to be uttered.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
On: September 29, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. rjn16 wrote: "Your logic that things can be "read into" the Constitution is exactly the kind of thinking that has screwed this country up. Anything not spelled out in the Constitution is left to the states, not made up by activitist judges and liberals who want the document to say whatever they would like it to. So, yes, I can argue against the Constitution saying everything you just pretended it says."
LOL. Its not what I pretend it says, it was what Thomas Jeffersons says it means, as well as what the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land, has said it means on numberous occassions. And, the 14th Amendment extended the principles spelled out in the Constitution to include the states. Separation of Government and religion is one of those principles.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
On: September 29, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. mltoran wrote: "I would tend to agree with the thought that if it was a nonchristian phrase used on that sign every week there would be very few people protesting the ban."
As a strict separationist, I would be oppposed to any religious phrase, regardless of the religious sect. The government must neither prescribe nor proscribe a religious belief.