For 2A - and All

[Tonio]

Given that neutrality implies inaction, purposelessness, and passiveness, it would be difficult to justify spending resources on pursuing this neutrality.

I don't get your point about inaction and passiveness. When judges and juries render verdicts according to the law without bias or favoritism, they aren't labeled as passive or purposeless.

 

[PJay]

For 2A:

http://www.alighthouse.com/undergod.htm

edit to add: Turn sound on

 

[paxetonic]

I don't get your point about inaction and passiveness. When judges and juries render verdicts according to the law without bias or favoritism, they aren't labeled as passive or purposeless.

I disagree with your notion of passiveness or purposelessness in cases of law on the part of judges and juries. To say that they are neutral is incorrect; they just have not yet passed a verdict on the case. In legal matters, the purpose of the parties in contestation is to persuade the judge/jurors to agree with their arguments and make a decision in favor of their side. Generally speaking, each member of a jury or a judge will possess some kind of an opinion on the argument presented before the court. Even the members of a hung jury each possess their own thoughts on the case at hand.

This conversation is crossing the boundary of scope for this thread. It was started on a question of religion and it has now become political. The point I was trying to convey with my last post was that I agreed with you that the government should be neutral in matters of religion AND that the government should not expend any resources to maintain that neutrality. Might I point out, Tonio, that you and I are now guilty of splitting hairs? I think I need to go see a beautician about mine.

 

[Railroad]

Might I point out, Tonio, that you and I are now guilty of splitting hairs? I think I need to go see a beautician about mine.

Couldn't agree more!! But most of this thread has been an exercise in splitting hairs - a few more won't make a difference, I'm sure!

 

[2ndAmendment]

2A--

I don't disagree with your statement about the First Amendment ; however, what does the Constitution say about endorsing a religion or implied endorsement of a religion? I don't ask this to be fesitious. I am not and do not pretend to be an expert on law.

Nothing!

...

I don't care that the politicians wish to make a deeper line in the sand regarding this issue.

You should. Anytime a legislator, judge, or other government official does something that goes beyond that authorized under the Constitution they are usurping or infringing on your rights.

I do care whether they impose on my personal lrights berties. Thus far, I have not seen anything proposed by either side that would do this. That it breaks my heart to see how our society is shunning God is true. If anything, I'd like to see the opposite happen; the embracement of God. My faith tells me that my hopes and dreams in this matter will, in time, come to pass. Until that time, I am content to do the Lord's will as best I can. I intend, by the grace of God, to pass my principles of faith to any children I may be fortunate enough to have. It is in this light that I made my previous post to this thread.

Unfortunately there will be a time of world wide anarchy prior to Christ's reign.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...
Here's an example--the Detention Center in St. Mary's recently handed out Bibles to all inmates. Now, if the intent was to try to convert inmates to Christianity, government has no business doing that, even though some of the inmates might benefit from conversion. I think the constitutional approach would be to make a limited number of books available from many different faiths. I have no problem with giving out religious books in prison, as long as they aren't from only one faith.

You do not state whether the Bibles were paid for by government funds or private funds. I would suspect private funds; there are several Christian jail ministries. I also suspect detention personnel did not hand out the Bibles but only allowed a private organization to hand them out.

 

[Tonio]

You do not state whether the Bibles were paid for by government funds or private funds. I would suspect private funds; there are several Christian jail ministries. I also suspect detention personnel did not hand out the Bibles but only allowed a private organization to hand them out.

The May 13 issue of the Enterprise said the commissioners wanted to use county funds to buy Bibles for the detention center. I think that's constitutionally wrong, unless the county buys other religions' holy books, which would be financially impossible. As a practical measure, the holy books should come from private funds instead.

My larger point is that government can't play favorites when it comes to religion. All faiths can and should be allowed to send their books and ministries to the detention center. To do otherwise goes against my idea of freedom of religion.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The May 13 issue of the Enterprise said the commissioners wanted to use county funds to buy Bibles for the detention center. I think that's constitutionally wrong, unless the county buys other religions' holy books, which would be financially impossible. As a practical measure, the holy books should come from private funds instead.

My larger point is that government can't play favorites when it comes to religion. All faiths can and should be allowed to send their books and ministries to the detention center. To do otherwise goes against my idea of freedom of religion.

Even if it is government money, it does not violate the First Amendment which only limits the U.S. Congress.

 

[Tonio]

Even if it is government money, it does not violate the First Amendment which only limits the U.S. Congress.

I'll leave that question to Ken King. I believe that the First Amendment's language on religion should be followed by every state and local government in the nation. In fact, every government in the world would benefit by adhering to neutrality on religion. I believe that no good can come from any government authority playing favorites among different faiths, even with the best of intentions.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I'll leave that question to Ken King. I believe that the First Amendment's language on religion should be followed by every state and local government in the nation. In fact, every government in the world would benefit by adhering to neutrality on religion. I believe that no good can come from any government authority playing favorites among different faiths, even with the best of intentions.

So what don't you understand about "Congress shall make no law"? The First Amendment does not apply to the states or localities since the states and localities do not make up Congress.

Amendment I (1791)

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 First Amendment only limits the U.S. Congress. The First Amendment lists certain things about which the U.S. Congress shall make no laws.

Too many people talk about the Constitution without ever reading it.

 

[tirdun]

Article I of the US constitution is mirrored in Articles 36 and 37 of the Maryland Constitution.

 

[Tonio]

Article I of the US constitution is mirrored in Articles 36 and 37 of the Maryland Constitution.

Specifically, the constitution's Declaration of Rights:

http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html

I disagree with Article 37. In my opinion, NO government or nation has the ethical or moral authority to require "a declaration of belief in the existence of God" for anything, especially as a condition for holding office.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Article I of the US constitution is mirrored in Articles 36 and 37 of the Maryland Constitution.

You mean Amendment I. Article I of the U.S. Constitution is the section that constitutes the Congress.

Article I
Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Sections 2 to 10 define the House of Representatives, Senate, and define and limit their powers. The First Amendment further limits the power of the Congress.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Specifically, the constitution's Declaration of Rights:

http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html

I disagree with Article 37. In my opinion, NO government or nation has the ethical or moral authority to require "a declaration of belief in the existence of God" for anything, especially as a condition for holding office.

Too bad. You see the ACLU and many others, including you, are misinformed about "separation of church and state" which does not exist.

 

[Ken King]

Tonio,

The First Amendment contains limitations upon areas the Congress may deal with and freedoms the people maintain. It places no requirements upon other areas of the Fed or upon the states to do the same.

 

[Tonio]

Too bad. You see the ACLU and many others, including you, are misinformed about "separation of church and state" which does not exist.

Why shouldn't "separation of church and state" exist? I believe the ACLU and groups like the Christian Coalition are both wrong. One side wants no mention of religion in public life, and the other wants Christianity to be the official religion of the nation. Both goals are contrary to the very American concept of freedom of religion.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Why shouldn't "separation of church and state" exist? I believe the ACLU and groups like the Christian Coalition are both wrong. One side wants no mention of religion in public life, and the other wants Christianity to be the official religion of the nation. Both goals are contrary to the very American concept of freedom of religion.

"Separation of church and state" is a memory phrase from study notes for the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Most people in the United States have never read the Constitution. Have you? Those that haven't have no idea what their rights are or what the federal government is allowed to do or prohibited from doing. Most of what the federal government does has no Constitutional authority.

I do not want the United States to have an official religion. I know of no Christian that does. There may be some fringe groups that do; I cannot speak to that.

I and all others are given the freedom of or from religion by the First Amendment as far as the United States government is concerned. The problem arises when those that want to be free from religion want to impose that freedom on those that want to have freedom of religion whether that person be a judge, commissioner, police office, Senator, Representative, President, or just John Q. Public. Just because you work for the government or that an office space or school is paid for with public funds does not change the guarantee that a person can observe their religion. That means they should be able to have a Bible (or Qur'an, etc) or a plaque of the Ten Commandments or a picture of Jesus in their office space. That means they can pray if they so choose. They cannot force anyone else to pray with them, but they can pray publicly if they so choose; it is guaranteed that we have that right. If you don't like someone having a plaque of the Ten Commandments or some other religious object on display in their office, don't go in their office; they have the right to have it despite what some judges legislating from the bench that have probably never read the Constitution and have stomped on the First Amendment have ruled.

 

[Tonio]

I do not want the United States to have an official religion. I know of no Christian that does. There may be some fringe groups that do; I cannot speak to that.

I appreciate you saying that. I've said before that mandating teacher-led prayer in school amounts to having an unofficial state religion. But students can and should be able to pray on their own.

I and all others are given the freedom of or from religion by the First Amendment as far as the United States government is concerned. The problem arises when those that want to be free from religion want to impose that freedom on those that want to have freedom of religion...

I agree with that whole paragraph. I don't want freedom from religion either--that's just as wrong as having an unofficial state religion. I just want both sides to leave the rest of us alone. When it comes to my kids, don't prevent them from praying on their own in school, and don't force them to pray in school either. Whatever religious beliefs my kids may have, those beliefs are not the school's business.