While everyone is discussing the Ground Zero Mosque I was thinking about how other religious topics find themselves in our politics. Many are quick to point out the 1st amendment right of religious freedom when the Ground Zero Mosque topic appears but it seems to me that praying in schools and even keeping the simple phrase "under God" in our pledge are somehow null and void from the first amendment. Basically the point I'm trying to get across is how hypocritical it is for people to try and ban pray in a public school and then turn around and say that Muslims are protected under the first amendment to build a mosque where ever they please. Discuss if you want to. I will try my best to be open to any opinions thrown out and please excuse any spellig errors as I'm typing this on my iPod touch.
I think the disconnect between you and the people who don't want prayer in schools (yet to be proven to be the same people . . . ) is that those people don't want to see the state taking sides with ANY particular religion. For example, mandating under god is in the whatever that thing is called is the same as mandating where you can build a mosque. It's the government siding for OR against a religion. What I don't understand is why people are mad at the government over this. Shouldn't they be mad at Burlington Coat Factory, the Realtors and the bank that loaned the money for the transaction?
I understand your view. I just feel like anyone who says that pray in school is forcing their child to partake is off their rocker. If your child is an atheist then don't pray, a Muslim pray to Allah, Christian pray to God. No one forces anyone to do anything, you make your own choices. Political correctness will be the downfall of society.
No, I'm sorry, the Constitution guarantees a separation between Church and State, since school are a PUBLIC institution run with public tax funds, they have no business mandating compulsory prayer for any religion whatsoever. I also have an issue with Under God in the Pledge and In God WE Trust on our money, but sadly the Supreme Court has decided that doesn't violate the Constitution, though it really does. It's Freedom OF Religion, and Freedom FROM Religion. Some people just don't care about religion at all and don't want to have to be bothered by the religious mores of others.
I'm not trying to force my religion on anyone man. I feel like my freedom of religion is being trampled upon when the government says I can't pray in school. Who pays for my schooling? The government? Who pays the government? The taxpayers. Also I'm not talking about complusory prayer I'm just talking about those "moments of silence". When 9/11 went down I sat at my desk put my hands together and said a prayer to myself when I was inturupted by my teacher who told me I could be expelled for my prayer. Instead I was supposed to sit quitely in my seat and reflect. I try not to force my religion on anyone but it really irks me when others try and force a policy of no religion.
You can pray in public school. No one is saying don't pray in public school. They're saying don't set up school sponsored and funded pray groups, teach all religions or no religion you're disconnect is in recognizing the difference between supporting and allowing, you're really blurring the line between those two. And the policy IS no religion. The state is not to take sides with any religion, this is to ensure our freedom of religion is maintained.
Sorry, but no it doesn't. Thomas Jefferson wrote that in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. it's not in the constitution.
I see what your saying. I guess I was mistaken on the whole supporting and allowing thing. In my personal experience though no school I have attended allowed prayer. I'm saying allow prayer of any type.
The First Amendment stipulates the separation of Church and State referenced by Jefferson in that letter with his use of "wall of separation". The Establishment Clause = Separation of Church and State It is right there in the Constitution. You're mistaken.
The seperation of Church and State is another interesting topic. I like to view it as a double edged sword. I want religion out of the government and I also want the government out of my religion. I can see why people don't want to say under God in the pledge but I don't see why you can't just not say it and let those who want to say under god say it. Why must it be yes or no can't we just reach a compromise?
Not at all. The constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The constitution does not guarantee a separation of church and state. I just wanted to clarify. The supreme court has interpreted that way, but it is not written out in the constitution.
Ok, I thought I was being clear, let me try again. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is meant to uphold separation of Church and State, and all that falls within its bounds (no national religion, etc.). Thus, the Establishment Clause = separation of Church and State. This is further reiterated by Jefferson's reference to the Clause in the aforementioned letter. This is even further reiterated by the very minutes of the Congress as they outlined these Amendments: Amendment I (Religion): House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution Further still, this is reiterated by John Locke's works whom the Founding Fathers based many of their philosophical and political ideals upon. The Supreme Court interprets it that way because that is what it is. Please do your homework.
He was just laying out the facts and dispelling misinformation, I wouldn't say there's anything pretentious about that.
It's called the first amendment, dude. The phrase is just something Jefferson coined. So right, it's not in the Constitution but the Bill of Rights most definitely makes it law. Again, I feel like you are saying that, for example, because the government won't disallow the mosque to be built that they are some how intervening in support of the mosque. Or that would somehow be your opinion but correct me if I am wrong. Somehow you are then linking this to the people who want state funded and supported prayer to be banned. That'd be like me saying that I think you are a religious theocrat because you seem to support the government stepping in to the private affairs between private parties on private land. These are two completely different issues with completely different circumstances and you cannot link them together and hope to use criteria from one to argue the other. Ground Zero Mosque - Private Property, Private Citizens, First Amendment, Government SHOULD be powerless Prayer in Schools - Tax Dollars pay for it, Government runs it, by putting the phrase 'Under God' in the pledge the government is acknowledging favoritism towards any religion that caters to a unitarian God and therefore is a violation of the first Amendment. It's simpler to remove the government mandated saying and simply let people say whatever they want to say. As long as we're relying on Anecdotes - In my school you got in trouble if you didn't say the pledge, regardless of whether you said 'Under God' or not. No matter how mild, forcing children to recite anything on a daily basis with punishment being the alternative is a form of indoctrination. I don't want children who indoctrinated into their patriotism - that's what leads to "My Country Right or Wrong." - and is a large part of why people defend the 'Under God' part (The largest being the crazy belief that we are a Christian Nation lolololol). I want children to derive their patriotism from good things, unfortunately I've always found those are hard to find.
The thing I fail to understand is how saying "under God" is government mandated. Many people just skip that line if they please. If the government removed the pharse wouldn't that be government mandated? Isn't forcing a church to remove a nativity scene from their lawn the government stepping in for atheists?
Please provide an example of where a government forced a church to remove a nativity scene, I guarantee you that if that happened there were extenuating circumstances, such as the scene was erected on public land or something similar. The government would have ZERO jurisdiction over private property which is what most churches sit upon. As for "under god" - again, you're not seeing the big picture here. Freedom of Religion also indicates Freedom FROM Religion. Again, some citizens of the US don't care one iota about religion and don't believe in God. Do they not have the same rights?
As long as religion isn't being used as an excuse to skip class, then what does it matter? If someone wants to sit at their desk and silently pray, rather than focus on their education, then by all means, it's their life being wasted, not mine.