A LIGHT BEGINS TO SHINE
Suzanne is a regular blogger on this site and I wanted to begin this article by saying how much I appreciate her. Suzanne, your honesty and thoughtfullness come through in all of your posts and I sincerely hope you realize how much I respect that, and how much I respect you. Thank you for bringing such integrity and effort to this site.
Now let me continue our discussion about religion and the constitution. You rightly point out the the First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” You are also correct in putting that into historical context as it relates to the Church of England. Many of the early American colonist came to this land from England to escape real religious persecution. The Quakers, among others, wanted to freely practice their religious beliefs. The Church of England, was the “official relgion” of the English government and it had taxing authority and legal authority over any and all citizens of England.
The words, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” were written to ensure that our Federal government stayed out of religion, period. In 1778, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia, PA and the addressed three main religious controversies: They decided that there would be no religious test, oath or other requirement for any federal elected office. They voted to allow Quakers and others to affirm (rather than swear) their oaths of office and they voted to refrain from recognizing the religion of Christianity, or one of its denominations, as an established, state church.
Here are some early drafts of the first amendment:
James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 “The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.”
House Select Committee, JUL-28 “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,”
Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.”
House version, AUG-20 “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” (Moved by Fisher Ames)
Initial Senate version, SEP-3 “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Final Senate version, SEP-9 “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”
Conference Committee “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Our founding fathers worked at getting the language right. Thomas Jefferson didn’t want relgion imposed on people either and was not quite satisfied with the final language. That is where the concpet of “seperation of church and state” comes in. Jefferson even used those exact words, although not in the constitution. What the courts must decide is where to build the wall. What constitutes “imposition”? Do you feel imposed upon if the the 10 commandments is posted on the wall of a school? But is taking that poster down prohibiting the “free practice thereof”?
I think both of us agree that it would be wrong to teach a specific religion in public school. We, as Americans, could not allow Christianity to be “taught” in any public, state or government venue, as the definitive truth. That would infringe upon the rights of those who chose to worship differently. Shat I see as ridiculous is the” idea of religion”, as a viable part of American and world history, can’t be taught in public school. I remember when I was in the second grade, I sat next to a little girl who was a Jehovah’s Witness. They do not believe in paying allegiance to anything other than God, so they do not say the Pledge of Allegiance. The first day of class, I was shocked that this little girl did not stand up. A boy next to me raised his hand and told on her, but the teacher said she didn’t have to. From that day on the teacher let the girl remain outside the classroom, doing busy work for her, until after the pledge.
Now isn’t that the essence of religious tolerance? Religion is a personal thing and the state has no business promoting or preventing the practice of one religion over the other. Think about it in these terms. Let’s replace Christianity with nature worship. There are many people, some of whom are my friends, that actually worship nature. Without trying to discuss the philosphy of that religion, let’s just put it in the place of Christianity. Would it then follow that if the majority of the people were “Naturists” and the local elementary school put up pictures of beautiful nature scenes in the hallway, with sayings like, “you are one with the earth”, should I, as a Christian, have the right to sue and have those pictures removed? Does seeing that picture and reading those words prevent me from practicing my religion? Does it force the religion of “Naturism” upon me?
I see the light beginning to shine in you, Suzanne. You seem to be saying that the separation of church and state should be reasonable, for all, including Christians. However, you can’t separate a man from his religion just because he get’s elected to office. If George Bush prays, so what? If George Bush says pray, or I’ll send the National Guard to your door to force you to pray, then we have a problem.
On the issue of states rights verses federal rights, Oh, Lord don’t get me started.
JesusisaRepublican Says: February 19th, 2005 at 7:51 am
By the grace of God, this Christian country has been blessed with a good Christian leader, George W. Bush. God has surely not turned his back on America.
Suzanne Says: February 19th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
I do not know who wrote the above post, though I am assuming it is from Buck.
If the above words are your thoughts, why are we arguing?
Thank you for you very nice words to me, they calmed down a bit off center girl.
Finding this site and becoming involved with the others who both comment and Post on “Laugh at Liberals” has in itself been quite an education. Before, my political views were more just inside my head, never had I really put them on paper or involved myself in such activities. In doing so, I have learned, that before one writes their words as to be fact, they had better be sure of what they are writing, especially on this site. Too many smart and informed people visit and read each word looking for just the one time I mess up. This is good, as it causes all of us who enjoy “Laugh at Liberals”, to be on our toes, so to speak.
Now, as to the above Post - I agree with everything that you wrote including the part concerning our President (who I did vote for) George Bush. Never would I think or wish to separate a man from his religion, nor would I expect any man to push his religion down my throat.
I never stated (I hope) or thought to separate a man from his religion, nor would this ever be my desire. Quite the opposite, as this was the exact separation I was referring to in my words about “The Separation of Church and State” or the Establishment Clause”..
Not only does George Bush have the right to say pray, and also the right to say pray in any form of prayer he wishes, so does each and every American.
The point I was trying to make or actually was not trying to make a point but was only asking some questions in relation to quoting the bible. The questions were for two reasons; one I had the perfect quote to back your post in question.
It has to do with “The Pillar Between Heaven and Earth” and “The Righteous One” in relation to the End of the World thing.
But the quote I wanted to put on my next comment on that post, is from the Kabala, or the Jewish Mysticism Book, which is based on the Old Testament.
Even though I am not Jewish, I find many close beliefs with the Reformed Jewish Religion and read many of their writings. “The Pillar Between Heaven and Earth” along with “The Righteous One” prevented me from believing that evil had taken over the earth during the 911 tragedy.
Actually the one you used is one I really love, the one speaking of a fallen Sparrow. The one I thought would be better and better defend that which you were defending is in the above scriptures found in the Old Testament.
Now that we agree that we both can agree and disagree, and still enjoy this site and all of the future debates I am sure we will have; I must say there are some things that are really bothering me and maybe you can help or answer my questions.
Though before I ask you those questions I still have a few reserved question still on the Religion thing, but will for now let it rest, just because of the words you wrote specifically to me.
HERE GOES:
This is in the pending case in the Supreme Court as to the Ten Commandments being removed or not removed from The United States Courts of Law.
I know I ranted and raved about “Separation of Church and State.” Then on the other hand I do not see nor do I have a problem with the Ten Commandments being in our Courts of Law, (with a few adjustments).
Now, I wonder, if I think the above, then do I believe in all that I wrote about Church and State.
See, confused, yes I am.
I read something today about the ACLU backing some group who is fighting to remove the Ten Commandments from the Courts of Law, and one of the groups backing this is the Jewish Organizations.
I am confused about this as the original Ten Commandments, were given to the Jewish People by God through Moses, found in the Old Testament. Of course this was before Christ was born.
It seems as if every one has forgotten their history including the Jewish People.
In addition I think I read that some other Christian Religions are also funding the case to remove the Ten Commandments.
It bothers me that the solution must be a war, when the solution is as basic as children getting along with each other. Instead of removing the Ten Commandments, could we add from different religions along side of the Ten Commandments?
Politics and Religion just do not mix,
I just believe in America and Americas values as to those of our Forefathers.
In the understanding that times have changed and we as people must also change with the times. Still, even in that change, we must keep the ideas and values in which the Bill of Rights and the original 13 States put into law as our method for government.
This stuff get very confusing -
Suzanne
K. Marx Says: February 19th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
It is a reasonable assumption that “Naturism” would not be infringing upon people’s views. It’s all about context and meaning. You put up a sign that advocates Wiccan practices and you are going to offend some Christians because of the context and meaning. Wiccan practices go against what Christianity preaches, so, of course, people are going to be angry. Naturism would not go against Christian practices (or any major religious practices) because “you are one with earth” is not explicitly offensive, as perhaps the words, “Christ is your Savior,” would be to Jewish or Wiccan practicing families.
By stating, “The primary colors are the answer to life’s problems,” I will offend no one. Why? Because being a Primary Colorist would not offend people that practice major religions. The same goes for Naturism.
Clever analogy, but I don’t think it’s relevant. The problem is not Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, etc. The problem with offending people is the context it’s in and the meaning behind it. You can’t just insert a word for “Christianity” and create a good analogy. You have to insert a word that has as much meaning as “Christianity.” Naturism is not a good substitute to make a cogent analogy.
buck Says: February 19th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
Karl,
Excellent! Naturism, may not have been the best analogy, but you got the point I was hoping to make. It is context that matters. There is a fundamental difference between being forced to watch or listen to something and being exposed to it. If you have a choice to not be exposed, such as not looking at something, not reading something or just plain ignoring something, how is that offensive?
How does the concept of separation of church and state even get brought up when we’re talking about a poster hanging on a wall. Remember just after 9/11 when those two missionairies were working in Afghanistan? There wre two young girls who were kidnapped and threatened with death if they didn’t stop preaching Christianity. There is a case for separation of church and state.
The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF.” What a brilliant turn of phrase that says precisely what it needed to say.
K. Marx Says: February 20th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
The line has also been drawn, as court opinions have shown, with publicly funded institutions exposing people to religious content. It’s obviously a fine line, yet a very vague one.
Some people feel it’s the duty of a public school (or even, the government) to expose children religious and moral values. Other people feel it’s the duty of parents and community to expose children religious and moral values. Who’s to say one is right and the other is not? Difficult to judge.
There’s also a fundemental difference between teaching a child about what Thomism is and putting up posters on lunchroom walls of Aquinas.
If children in a public school have the right to put up a poster endorsing their religious views, does a student or parent then have the rights to take it down? Can a student put up a poster endorsing Anton Lavey, which, would probably lead to a serious uproar or even violence? I would hope not because it could cause to some serious problems. Problems which are easily addressed by just keeping certain things to certain venues.
pat Says: February 21st, 2005 at 3:50 am
I’m sorry but I do not see what everyone’s problem with religion is. I was never raised religious and my parent’s never made me go to church. Now being an adult I can see what is right and what is wrong. I felt sickened when the schools were forced to the the pledge of allegiance. This was a ritual that I wanted passed on down to my children”when I have them”. For me the pledge was more of a way for all americans to pay homage to all of our service men who have died fighting for our freedoms and our way of life.
Why do liberals feel the need to attack anything that has a remotely undertone of religion in it? I commend the judge who refused to take down the monument of the ten commandments. I thought we lived in a free country still? This country was founded on people escaping persecuation for thier beliefs. It might just be my opinion but I feel that mainly what liberals do is criticize. It really does not matter what the subject is liberals just feel the need to tell the rest of america how stupid we are. I think that majority has spoken with the recent elections. You dems and libs just cant help yourselves when it comes to the core believes of the rest of the country. Maybe this is why the dem party is at its weakest state scince pre WWII.
Suzanne Says: February 21st, 2005 at 3:57 am
The reason Church and State was brought up is because of the fact the two are no longer seperate!
I brought up this fact, in hopes of an answer to which church is it that some seem to know about and I do not. I guess it would be whatever church the Religious Right belongs to if there is such a thing as the Religious Right and if they have their own Church.
Even though this has been talked about and written about, it has not been addressed. Seems as if one brings up this subject, the subject gets mislead into a different subject.
Why is it so hard just to answer the basic question without adding additional questions?
The question is very simple, don’t confuse the issue!
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: February 21st, 2005 at 4:36 am
“My Oh My”
Buck and K. Marx
Are we confusing issues or are we confusing issues. The original issues was and is Separation Between Church and State, not what rolls a church or a religion play in the US, nor if children are or are not taught any religious values in school.
Separation between Church and State - Read the words, this is not having the Governments Religious Values in government. This does not mean the government can not say pray. This means the way the government does pray belongs to the government and should not be imposed upon the public. This is however a very poor example of this issue. A good example would be the Guy marriage issue, and the abortion issue. I am not stating where I stand on either issue, but as these are individual right issues, and also religious issues, the government should not be involved. The above issues are between one or two individuals, or between two or one individuals and their personal Religious leader. Not the Government.
Vague? The Establishment Clause, as it is actually referred to as, was placed before “Freedom of Speech” in the Bill of Rights, - did you read the words from Thomas Jefferson? It is under Religious Ignorance. Read it, I do not think he was being vague.
Now Buck you can not go two ways, either you believe what you wrote about the views of our Forefathers, as to religion and government or you do not. I am not speaking about us, the people being tolerant of other religions; do not mix that subject up with this subject. I am and you know what I am speaking of; the Government becoming involved in Religious issues, and or branding their personal Religious Values upon the Public. That and that only, no more - no less - no other.
Not vague, not one of Public Tolerance, not one of any thing except exactly what I wrote.
If you feel so free about wiping this on under the table what right or which right is next - the Freedom of Speech? Is the line for “Freedom of Speech” also vague?
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: February 21st, 2005 at 4:40 am
Pat, there is not problem with religion. That is the problem. The original discuss that will not be discussed, is the Government becoming involved with you as to your religion if it is not the same as the governments religious belief. That and that only is the issue, but for some reason no one wishes to answer or address this issue. They need to cloudy the waters with words that do not relate.
Nothing wrong with religion, nothing at all that is what this is about. Your religion my religon and the Presidents religion, each belonging to the individual and keeping it that way. Nothing more and nothing less.
Suzanne
K. Marx Says: February 21st, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Suzanne;
Perhaps the problem in communication is due to the fact that some of us are discussing political ethics and some are giving historical and realistic observations.
The question of whether the U.S. government, hereby referred to as “the state,” should or should not do something is a question of ethics. What the state should do and what the state has done or does is not a question of ethics, it’s observation.
We are supposed to have Freedom of Speech in the U.S. That is a statement regarding ethics. The fact is that the state has shown that not all speech is free or protected under Freedom of Speech (I won’t get into the PATRIOT Act regarding freedom of speech, but I will start a new thread if anyone is interested). That is where the vagueness I spoke about comes into play.
One needs to look no further than the Oxford Dictionary to understand how the Constitution, Amended Rights, etc. can be vague. There are no definite limits (the definition of “vague”) to free speech, so court opinions decide these limits.
The same goes for any common law. If you want me to dissect every word of the Establishment Clause (or any common law) for vagueness I will, but I don’t feel it’s necessary. If you simply look at the words, and question, “Okay, what is the definition of religion?” etc. you will see where vagueness can come into play.
Suzanne Says: February 22nd, 2005 at 5:54 am
K. Marx
So, I am assuming that by what you wrote, you not only desire that the Establishment Clause be gotten rid of, but also the right to free speach?
I wonder why I have this chill going up and down my spine when I read your words. Then I read other things that I read. Then I remember what my friend wrote in his Reply to the Open Letter to Europe from Europe.
Oh the Cold Winds are a Blowing
I am glad I will not be here to see them when they arrive
Suzanne
K. Marx Says: February 22nd, 2005 at 8:43 am
Suzanne;
Please explain how you came to the conclusion that I desire the Establishment Clause and freedom of speech to be “gotten rid of.”
My views on political ethics are irrelevant to the conversation, so I’ve seen no reason to state them. It’s not my opinion that the U.S. was founded on feedom of speech, it’s a fact. It’s not my opinion that there have been limits made on freedom of speech, it’s a fact. It’s not my opinion that the Establishment Clause exists, it’s a fact. It’s not my opinion that there have been court opinions that run contrary to the Establishment Clause, it’s a fact.
I have not said whether I think these were good or bad things, I only recognize that they exist.
This medium isn’t formal enough to get into a decent conversation on the ethics of such matters.
Maverick Says: March 1st, 2005 at 5:42 am
K. Marx something you must realize is that your views are alot like K. Mart…..dead and gone! So quit playing devils advocate and make way for captialism.
K. Marx Says: March 1st, 2005 at 8:19 am
Maverick; Highly original. If you care to discuss economics, we will do so; I only ask you stick to the topic at hand.
As for your comment about Kmart, may I direct you to the present NASDAQ listings? As of Feb. 28, 2005, Kmart Corporation is trading at $97.47. Coincidentally, KMRT was up $0.79 today. Dead and gone? By dead and gone do you mean ceasing to exist?
Since you have delighted me with clever name association, let me expand upon your chosen handle “Maverick.” There was a character named “Maverick” in a 1986 Tony Scott film Top Gun where actor Tom Cruise played said part. I’m sure many are familar with the film as it was widely well received. Yet, after an interview with film co-star Val Kilmer in Details magazine (if I recall correctly), the film drew wide criticism. Apparently, as Kilmer pointed out, the film was made as a form of innuendo for “a love that dare not speak its name.” For further reading on the matter, I suggest referencing Oscar Wilde and also a chameo appearence by Quentin Tarantino in the 1994 film Sleep With Me in which he delivers his famous evaluation of the Top Gun innuendo. So, Maverick, as you can see, we have both picked interesting nick names for ourselves. As I have shown with your nick name, perhaps there is no significant meaning attached. Or perhaps there is. To quote Jerry Seinfeld: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
Maverick Says: March 4th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
WEll at least we agree on one thing… Jerry Seinfield. I love that guy. As far as my name goes, you may not believe me but i have never seen Top-Gun and therfore did not get my name from there. I got my name from the definition of the word (look it up) and from and old Western movie that starred Mel Gibson in it. I liked the movie and the defention so I took on the nick name Maverick, not because of Tom Cruise.
For the K-Mart refrence: I guess I dont follow stocks closely enough but I do understand the dominace Wal-Mart has over K-Mart, Sears and all other competiors. Only here in the state of texas is Wal-Mart not in the green, and that is because of H.E.B Grocery not K-Mart. Also a litle fun fact, Wal-Mart is opening 216 new stores in the U.S. alone the year! Thats not even worldwide and maybe I am wrong but I dont think K-Mart is international…
1 more opinion… It would be intresting to see what some people who frequent this site thought on this topic. Is Wal-Mart too powerful? MAy sound stupid but they pratically control inflation in some areas and have a major impact on our economy. And while they give thousands of jobs to people (they actually employ 1.8 million people) in the process take away many more too. Just a thought…
And K.Marx you know that you do tend to play devils advocate a lot though… To quote Jerry Seinfeld: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” LOL
K. Marx Says: March 5th, 2005 at 6:40 am
Maverick; There is a reason why Wal-Mart’s prices are so low. I do not shop at Wal-Mart for a number of reasons. That is not to say I feel there should be laws against (or laws discouraging) corporate success. For capitalism, the less limits the better. Although, it would be tough to justify giving corporations monetary advantages for hurting the domestic U.S. economy. Further, it is comical that the employees of such a corporation do not seek better pay and benefits. You would like to think that a company posting such high profits would be kind enough to put some of that wealth back into the U.S. economy.
Employing 1.8 million people does very little when a good number of those people make wages that wouldn’t support a single person let alone a family.
Is playing devil’s advocate a good or bad thing?
Suzanne Says: April 3rd, 2005 at 9:11 am
Because Mr. Marx anytime specific freedoms are brought up in any comment as to make a point against the commentary these freedoms are quickly washed away in one perfected rehearsed phrase or another.
That is why Mr. Mark.
Oh by the way I have miss writing on this site.
Have you missed me?
Suzanne
Elise Says: April 3rd, 2005 at 8:12 pm
I do frequent Walmart. The prices are not necessarily low. You have to shop around, if you intend to just buy the items which are lower. I also know people who work at Walmart who are very happy with their wages and that they have a job and benefits. So maybe a little wage is better than none. I have also heard of people who worked at Walmart, who felt that they were a family oriented company and one person who had a wife with cancer, praised the help he got from the company. Of course some people would not be happy regardless — never enough!
Suzanne Says: April 14th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Well, Freedoms -
If my College serves me well
and if my Father who is a retired Air Force Major and Attorney. A true blue American who believes in His country along with being The Shining Star in my Life.
For the above two statements formed me into that which I am today.
The most important and the subject I would fight to the end to protect is our basic rights to the Freedoms as so stated in the Bill of Rights. The foundation of all that followed.
Freedoms of all Americans, Your Birth Right – Watch out someone is trying to take these away from you all in the name of -What?-
It is the role of the government to protect each and every Americans Individual Right written as law in the United States of America Constitution.
Formats before this duty would of course be to protect America from foreign invasion.
It does not proceed a governments desire to increase its own power and authority by removing or shrinking individual rights.
But, have you been reading the paper, I mean a paper which is not controlled by, (Oops, better not write that one, Huh?)
Your Presidents job is to protect these rights from being abused, removed and or used for the purpose of advancing government and governmental power. Nor should the government take into consideration any other group be it political religious, or just self motivated in it dealing with the protecting of these rights.
Now, can you think of any, I mean just one recent event where the government based upon a religious belief stomped with the long arm of the law on the “Right to Die” “The Right To Live” This is an individual right an individual freedom, it does not belong to the government with the exception of the governments responsibility to protect that right of the concerned individual, no one else no church no government no outside influence.
This includes Congress, Courts of Law, and or any legal games used to postpone the final decision of only those who are personally involved.
Is this the way our government acted just a short time ago? Whose rights were protected by the government? Or did the government try to impose its Religious Right beliefs upon innocent Americans and did the government invade the privacy of a situation that no one no government no church no country should ever have become involved in as they made a farce out of a family sorrow.
Well, what can I say, my freedoms my rights as an individual American are being used to increase the power of the government and decrease my freedoms my rights my security, my income my artistic endeavors and this is just the tip of the bucket
Think about it
How many people do you think have your medical records who do not need them
How about your credit records, how about your sex life?
Oh you might be surprised, you really just might get real upset if you only knew the truth,
How does that famous saying go?
Know the Truth and it will set you Free?
In this situation it should read as follows
Know the truth, - - — - well, can’t write that on this site as it would not be lady-like
Suzanne
Dave Says: April 14th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Everyone,
First of all, lets get something straight. Many of you seem to forget this in your conversations. The Constitution of the United States does not exist to protect you and your rights from other American citizens. That is a function of state law and Federal Code. The Constitution exists to protect you and your rights from infringement by the GOVERNMENT, be it federal, state or local!! The Constitution is a finely crafted document designed to ensure that never again will any government be able to ignore, tramnple on or otherwise negate the individual rights and freedoms (as spelled out in the document) of you or your family (as was the case in England). Nor can the government infringe upon you in such ways as harboring soldiers in your home without your permission, or forcing you to adopt one particular state sanctioned religion, or stopping you from saying that you don’t like the government or its leaders.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can say any damn thing you want to. For example, freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can walk into a crowded auditorium and yell “fire”, knowing full well that not only is there no fire, but that people will get hurt and possibly killed in the rush to escape. Freedon of speech means being able to openly criticize the government, the President, the Congress, government agencies or bureaus and their employees and agents, etcetc without fear that some government sanctioned team of “morality police” will come for you in the dead of night and lock you away in some dungeon for the rest fo your life, or torture you until you confess your sins and pledge your undying allegiance to the king and crown before being executed.
And don’t even try and tell me that this is what the Patriot Act does, cause that is pure bullshit and you all know it. I seriously doubt that anyone on this blog has been subjected to unjust or illegal confinement, without being able to freely exercise their rights, for anything. Also, I do not believe that the people being held in Guantanomo are deserving of the rights guaranteed by our constitution because they are NOT citizens of this country! Prisoners of war who are citizens of other countries do not have some automatic right to expect Constitutional protection such as we enjoy here. There are international laws and regulations concerning the treatment of prisoners and detainees and by all means if we are violating those laws then we should be held accounatable, but nowhere do these laws say that the prisoner is afforded the coverage of Constituional freedoms and rights of the host country (this being the United States). Such Constitutional rights are reserved for citizens of this country, and I do not believe that we have to extend these rights to anyone else.
As for religious freedom, it doesn’t really matter what religion or what faith you choose to exercise, your right to do so without interference is what is guaranteed in the Constitution. This means that not only can the government NOT tell you HOW to worship, or when, or to what god or religion, but they also cannot tell you HOW NOT TO do these things!! I don’t understand where anyone can possibly see any ambiguity in the words of the First Amendment. It doesn’t take a freaking Constitutional scholar or overpaid hack lawyer to explain it to me. I can read it for myself. “Congress shall make NO LAW (emphasis mine obviously) regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion or the FREE EXERCISE thereof”. How much clearer can it possibly be? NO LAW MEANS NO LAW!!! Nothing!!
Congress, the President, the governor of your state, can pray all they want to, openly in public, point right at you and call you a sinner. As long as they do not make a law declaring that any particular religion is the natioanl religion and punishing those who do not follow it, they are following the Constitution. As long as they do not force people NOT to pray when and where they want to, or to take down posters, monuments etc, then there is no reason to fear. The fact that monuments have been erected on federal and state property which exalt the Christian god does not in and of itself make it a law to follow christianity. It simply represents the fact that the MAJORITY of the citizens of this country who are religious are christians in one form or another. You are all free to worship whatever god you want to, or none at all, no one has ever said otherwise, and for any one of you to claim that you have been somehow forced to pray to my god or some god of the President’s against you will, or simply because HE chooses to pray, is also bullshit and an outright LIE!!
Finally, the Constitution was not written to keep the government from offending you or your fellow citizens!! It has nothing to do with keeping you from getting your precious little feelings hurt. If my exercise of free speech or religion offends you, tough shit!! Get over it. Maybe your nosering offends me…or maybe your tattoo offends me…or maybe those baggy gangbanger pants you guys wear or that ladies cropped top that lets your belly fat show for all the world to see offends me. But do I demand that you take it out, pull it up or cover it up so I don’t have to see it and be unduly influenced by its presence? NO I DO NOT, nor would I!!! That is the essence of freedom…the right to do what you want as long as it does not cause injury or death to another person or somehow cause an infringement on their rights, and there ain’t nothing the government, or you, can do about it.
I am tired of people trying to use the Constitution as a way to dictate individual behavior in society. That is NOT what it is for.
Paul Says: April 14th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
Suzanne, I guess its time for “ye old cut and paste”. Here was my reply to you the last time you started accusing Christians of the “Conspiracy to Take Over The World”
We must have a separation of church and state. There must not be an established religion according to the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution. There is no debating this and I personally take comfort in the fact that the government via the tyranny of the majority cannot make me become Baptist or Hindu or Muslim.
The last time I checked (although I could be wrong), nobody in the Bush White House has forced anyone to convert to Christianity. Although there are people who call this a Christian nation, they do not say that to impose a government religion but instead say that to let people know that the founding ideas of this country were created by christians.
Now here is where we get to the meat of the matter. The majority of people in this country are christian of some form or another. We will vote our concience. We will run for office. Our beliefs will influence the decisions we make. Does that mean there is some Vast Christian Conspiracy out there waiting to rule the world?
Right……….
There is a reason why the socialist left is now scared of christians. Because of their ridicule and insistence that we are all ignorat fools, most of us, slowly but surely have been forced to drift right in our politics. This has not always been so, especially in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. Now, instead of being mostly Democrat, we find ourselves mostly Republican. I guess there just isnt enough room in the “big tent” for us ignorant hate-mongers.
But see, because we have drifted right en masse, we have become frightening to the Socialist left. Thus we have been accused of every maddog scheme that they can think of to discredit us (such as the topic of this particular thread).
The rhetoric is becoming more vitriolic since Bush was re-elected as we are either the heroes to be thanked or the scum to be accused, depending upon whom you ask (personally, I wish to be neither).
A student of history need only read the history of early 20th century Europe to find a group of people who were demonized as much as Christians are now. The rhetoric became obnoxious then too, and it cost 6 million of them their lives.
I can understand, on a basic level, people becoming uncomfortable with Christians and thier political power in the good ole USA. But the way to change that is with open communication and rapprochement(sic) instead of ridicule and shouts of “separation of church and state”. If given a chance, almost all of us would agree that there needs to be separation, but we also do not want to see it as a sword to separate us from our rights. Or to inflame the public. Kind of like, “Deutschland, uber alles”.
Comment by Paul — 2/25/2005 @ 11:32 pm
Pretty much says it all.
Bonniem Says: April 15th, 2005 at 1:20 am
What I have never understood, and maybe you can explain, is that we have “Freedom of Action” considered Freedom of Speech. How can burning a flag be considered Freedom of Speech, when it is an action. I think there is a double standard there.
Suzanne Says: April 18th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Well, I see I have some more reading to do,
will be making a much needed comment.
Hey Buck, your title on this one
“A Light Begins to Shine”
My Dear, this light has been shinning for a long time, did you just now notice?
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: April 18th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Burning the Flag is not Freedom of Speedh nor is it any freedom it is anti American,
If you are so worried about the Flag, as I am, why don’t they bring it in doors at night like they used to, why is our Flag left out in the rain, what happened to the respect for our flag, and you complain about it being burnt, how about it being drenched with rain left out to become tattered and torn in the wind, used as a decortive item to make sales in retail stores, come on, lets get real
Freedom of speech freedom of religion that is the topic
Stick to the topic
stop with the side stepping all of you who are. I can not be fooled with you prelearned answers
Suzanne
Bonniem Says: April 19th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Oh! I agree that the flag is not taken care of.
Bonniem Says: April 20th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Suzanne, why do I get the idea that you just want to fight!? You make the rules “Stick to the topic of freedom of religion”, “Stick to topic, stop side stepping”, “I cannot be fooled with your prelearned answers”. O.K. You got it!
Suzanne Says: May 3rd, 2005 at 8:49 am
I do not want to fight, I hate fighting I hate war I hate it when the basic values of this country are disregarded all in the name of something, which causes fear in the American Public.
There are many ways to accomplish all that must me done to protect our country, but taking away the individual rights, which are the foundation of this country, this is the difference between American and other countries.
Fight, you damn right I will fight, I will fight to uphold the constitution of this country, The Bill of Rights, Your Rights My rights everyone’s rights.
Including;, Yes Buck, Our Presidents rights.
It is the duty of our President to protect our rights not takes them away.
I understand there is a fine line between our Freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights, but it is extremely clear as to specific topics.
ONE - Religion and Government do not mix. Government stays out of religion and religion stays out of government. This has nothing to do with prayer in school, or with a religious symbol in a courthouse.
Want to know the real problem; it is neither the government nor the religious groups, NOPE.
Example, I decide to put 100 religious symbols in my front yard, but Oops, I leave out the Star Of David, well do you think the ACLU will come and sue me for the Jewish people? No way, as I do not have any money for them to get.
On the other hand If I were the owner of a large high rise office building worth over a few billion dollars and did the exact same thing do you think the ACLU would sue me to profit the Jewish community? Actually, they would sue me but not to profit the Jewish community, but to profit themselves.
If government stayed our of religion and religion stayed out of government, this all of these law cases which only make the attorneys rich and create terrible problems in this country. If there was no one to take to court, and no cases that would make these money hunger attorneys create problems where there were never any before, Hey this subject would be closed.
But as long as the two, - Government and Religion intermix well the ACLU and quite a few Attorneys will just get richer and richer, and here on Laugh at Liberals, we disagree and disagree, but face it friends, who is actually responsible for me even bringing up this subject?
Not you, no the Jewish neighbor down the street, not the family how does not believe in God, no, they do not have any problems with prayer in school nor do they actually care, why, it is just no big deal to them, but if the ACLU knocked on their door and said hey, want to make some big money, lets sue, sue sue.
Now that is it in a simple explanation.
Like it or not this is the facts of life in America today.
Do not get rid of our President get rid of those who undermine the president,
see, Our President can only be President for a maximum of 8 years then we change, hey this is American, and if we do not like our President we vote him our. But sad, we can not vote out the ACLU or these Attorneys.
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: May 3rd, 2005 at 8:59 am
Pre-learned answers?
Did you really write that?
My Oh My, someone is upsent.
Gosh, this is to be a happy site, not a sad site.
Do you have a problem if I fight for your rights as an American, or should I just leave you out and protect the others?
I am trying to stick to the topic of Freedom of religion it is those who comment on this subject with items of not meaning, but it is only polite that I do give some answer.
Like the Flag, or do you also have a problem with the American Flag?
Just checking as I do not even try to fool anyone anytime anywhere. I am exactly as I write and as I say, nothing more nothing less.
No games for this girl
Suzanne
Oh - I bring my flag in at night, do not put it out if it is raining. And never use it for profit.
bonniem Says: May 3rd, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Suzanne, you were the one that wrote “pre-learned” answers in comment #24, Girl, you are all over the place!LOL!
Suzanne Says: May 9th, 2005 at 7:47 am
Bonniem are you
L.O.L? or S
pre learned answers are different than turning a fact into a flag burning facade
Suzanne Says: May 9th, 2005 at 7:52 am
Dear Buck
I think you are a lost cause.
Brainwashed, close minded.
Unlink a friend of yours, not that he is a traitor, just the opposite, but he does have a mind that is open to thinking.
This shows the difference between someone with the ability to think for themselve or no ability to think on their own.
So one point to Mr You Know Who and minus one Point to Buck.,
Suzanne
I am just about but not quite ready to give up on you, might take about four years
bonniem Says: May 9th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Sorry, Suzanne, you just lose me in your rantings. I can’t answer your comments, because I never can figure out what you are talking about!
Suzanne Says: May 9th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
Hey Bonniem
I can never figure out what everyone else is talking about either.
Guess we are all in the same boat.
On some of my comments are only for specific people I try to use the name but well, at 2 in the morning my brain gets hazy and confused.
Don’t let it upset you. All I really want to say.
Is - I am an American, I believe in tradition. I believe in the Bill of Rights. I love my country.
I believe Religion and Politics do not mix.
With the exception of our country based upon
In God We Trust.
Now, I think all of us should go somewhere other than a church, say up to the mountains, somewhere that God likes the quiet.
Sit down for awhile and talk to God. No he will not answer back in English, but listen to those quiet little thoughts deep within your soul.
That is how God speaks to us.
I do this quite often. I find that God listens to me as he does to everyone.
No, God has never told me that Religion and Politics do not mix, but my belief is if God wanted to be into politics he would run for President!
What do you think?
God is the God of the entire world not just the United States of America.
God loves each and every person walking this earth. Does not matter if this person is of any specific religion, or Political group.
I think that way back then, oh more years back than I can count. God did not like Government mixing his word with their words. As no one but God knows the truth!!
Not you, not me, not our President, none of us.
We will know when we go and finally meet our God. And boy do I have a lot to ask Him.
I wonder what he would say about todays situtation. Do you think He is thrilled that our Government is using His name to make right that which may or may not be right or wrong?
No, don’t think so.
I believe God is the one and only voice I believe.
With the exception of two other people and of course my Mommy and Daddy.
Oh, I wish so much that God would write a comment on this site. Can you just think what He would say?
First as God has a sense of humor, it would be funny, then very serious.
But for sure he would set each and every one of us straight.
Next complaint.
As God is God and knows all, I do not think he needs to be told when and who to bless.
He knows, who and when to bless them.
Stop telling God to bless people, I really believe this makes him UPSET.
Just my thoughts. Nothing more nothing less
Now can you figure out what I am talking about?
I am always refering to each commentary I have made on this site.
Suzanne
Oh, Not Jewish, but close.
Remember God said we are all his children,
God also said respect your Parents.
God is my Father, I respect Him
Therefore Keep God out of Government. This is not respect.
War in the name of God
Not respect.
War is necessary at time we all know that.
But not in the name of God. Please that is like using His name in vain.
HOw about war in the name of the DEvil?
Better Yes?
Oh I do not rant, I voice my thoughts. If to you they are ranting then you have the problem not me.
Just a girl with the name of flowers
A child of God
A citizen of the World
An American and proud to be one.
I serve my country with pride and honer.
My daughter does the same
my father did the same
My entire Family did the same
Oh those comments you found rantings have no answer.
Suzanne
That answer will come in my next commentary
Love this site
Love all of you
Love your comments
even love Buck and Zack
Suzanne Says: June 1st, 2005 at 7:30 am
Idiotarians and Traitors of the Right
There have been many right-wing attempts to cozy up to the Islamofascists. In every case an alliance was proposed against the same enemy: against liberals, against secularists, against the ACLU, against the liberal press, against Hollywood, against atheists and unbelievers, against gays and liberated women, against death-penalty opponents, and so on. And they aren’t faking it. On many issues the American right wing is closer to the Taliban and to al Qaeda than to your average American.
If you look at the differences between America and the other nations of the world around 1790, one of the most striking was that America was founded as an explicitly secular nation. Both freedom of religion and freedom from religion were guaranteed. Several of the founding fathers (notably Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Ethan Allen) were Deists rather than Christians. Others were members of heretical sects (Quakers, Unitarians) or traditionally lax churches (Episcopal). Fundamentalists and other conservative Christians can claim ownership of the American tradition only with the help of ignorance and fraud. When right-wingers identify themselves with oppressive foreign theocrats and fundamentalists, they’re certainly idiotarians. But aren’t they traitors too?
I expect some hostile reactions to what I’m writing, and that’s fine. If someone calls me a traitor, they should expect me to come back at them. I’m sure there will be some to whittle and nibble away at what I say by finding small errors, but I’m confident that the bulk of what I’m saying will turn out to be valid.
And of course, people are perfectly attuned to the talk-show cycle will just say “That’s old news. Who cares?” There’s no use talking to idiots like that.
At this point in history, Democrats and liberals have been marginalized. We can only hope that swing voters and Republican moderates will finally look around and realize who really controls the Republican party, and what the Republican core constituency really wants. And decide that they can’t stay there.
On my site the huge remaining parts of this Drama Queens Drama