Freethought & Rationalism Archive

B34RZ0R · 11-14-2002, 06:36 AM

Hey All I hope this post isn't too long to bother to read but the other day I received an e-mail (read: God spam) from my Sis.

"This is a statement that was read over the PA system at the football game at Roane County High School, Kingston, Tennessee, by school Principal, Jody McLoud, on September 1, 2000. I thought it was worth sharing with the world and hope you
will forward it to all your friends. It shows clearly just how far this country has gone in the wrong direction.
"It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and country.

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it, "an alternate
lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK.

I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK.

I can even use this public facility, to present the merits of killing an unborn baby, as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, no problem."
OK ENOUGH!!
That was just a portion of the e-mail, but you can get the "gist" of the idea.. the Christians are offended that someone somewhere cant say a prayer at a sporting event.. My reply was as fallows... (or at least the part that is pertinant to this posting)
"Hey Sis,

I am not looking to start an argument here or anything, but I fully support the separation of church and state, and I believe that is what the court ruling that is mentioned was supporting. Opinions on sexuality & birth control are different entirely. But lets say that there is a Jewish Guy on the football team.. is he to be subjected to the word of Jesus when his family has raised him to not believe in Jesus?.. I personally think that he shouldn't be. I also agree that if a Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu etc etc etc faithed person in an educational institution does not want to say "under God" in the pledge that is fine. I know we have had some different discussions on this topic but I really really strongly support the separation of Church and State..."
She replied back that the separation of church and state (or at least how I understood it) was a phallusey (sp?) and has been twisted to mean what all of us anti-Christians want it to mean..(paraphrased)
OK now after all of that hooey (

)
My question is this:
What is the real root of the 'idea' of "Separation of Church and State"? I have read the 1st Ammendment and it does not specifically spell out that Church shall not be involved in the state, more the reverse.. that the Government can not interfere with Religious institutions..
HELP
Be Well
*Bear*

simian · 11-14-2002, 07:13 AM

The purpose of separation of Chruch and State is exactly what this message was in response to. Giving the timing and description, this is "SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE, individually and as next friend for her minor children, et al." The basics of the case was the the school has a vast majority of Southern Baptists and were harassing the Catholic and Mormon children in the community. Unfortunately, the case is referred to in the popular press as the "Texas Football Prayer Case". The worst offenses took place in the school during school time, some by teachers.

<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/009/7.19.html" target="_blank">Here</a> is a perfect example of how the case was purposely mislabled. From the story:
"Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice argued Santa Fe's case before the Supreme Court. He says the decision "was clearly aimed at the Christian community at Santa Fe." Concerning Stevens' belief that allowing prayer isolates minority views, Sekulow says, "I think he's got it wrong. In a pluralistic and democratic society, you're oftentimes going to hear things you disagree with, but that's the price of freedom.""
(end of quoting)

The plaintiffs were Christians as well. The Baptist majority was doing to the non-Baptist minority what the larger Christian community has done to non-believers for some time. This is why there is the separation of Church and State. When you choose one religion as the national religion, then one sect of that religion can be chosen above all other sects (to paraphrase Madison in Memorial and Remonsterance, if memory serves).

I wish I could find the article, but a Mormon newspaper did an excellent article on exactly why a Mormon would be in a case preventing prayer in school, and why all Mormons should support this action.

A brief news story can be found <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer/" target="_blank">here</a>. The Supreme Court decision can be found <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-62" target="_blank">here</a>. The briefs can be found <a href="http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/mardocket.html#99-62" target="_blank">here</a>.

The case being complained about was about Christians being persecuted by Christians. Then the popular US understanding somehow transmuted "Catholic and Mormon" to "atheists".

Simian

Edited to clarify where quotes are, and to add a paragraph about a mormon paper.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: simian ]</p>

B34RZ0R · 11-14-2002, 07:20 AM

Thanks For all the great info' Simian. I do still ask before the mentioned story: What is the root of alot of peoples conception or misconception of the seperation of church and state?..
Was I mistaken in that the basis for seperation of church and state was to keep the ideals of a religious group out of our government, which the 1st Amendment does not seem to spell out.
Thanks again
Be Well
*Bear*

simian · 11-14-2002, 07:26 AM

As I understand it, the purpose of the 1st Ammendment is to keep church and state separated to the corruption that occurred in Europe (and had occurred in the colonies as well) would not become become a part of the United States. If there were a national church, it would continue the abuses of power that was seen in the various colonies (being a Quaker was a hanging offense in some areas, non-Anglicans had to pay a tithe to the Anglican church in VA, if memory serves me). Fortunately many of the founders of this country were too well educated to think endorsing a "generic" Christianity was any better than endorsing a specific denomination. From what I have seen, Jefferson was very aware of Muslims and Hindus, as well as non-believers. A constitutional lawyer or historian would be a better person to comment on this, however.

Simian

Stephen Maturin · 11-14-2002, 07:35 AM

Bear,

The best and most comprehensive online resource for church-state separation issues I've ever seen can be found <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Happy studying!

MacPrince · 11-14-2002, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bear:
[QB]
She replied back that the separation of church and state (or at least how I understood it) was a phallusey (sp?) and has been twisted to mean what all of us anti-Christians want it to mean..
QB]

It's spelled fallacy. If she spelled it that way, it sounds like a seriously Freudian slip.

B34RZ0R · 11-14-2002, 07:43 AM

HEY thats my sister..

No she spelled it wrong (falesy)and so did I...
damnit for not checking dictionary.com 1st
But really our family can spell...
Trust me

Be Well
Bear

11-14-2002, 06:36 AM	#1
B34RZ0R Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Lost in the Ether, Minnesota Posts: 1,436	Help! Hey All I hope this post isn't too long to bother to read but the other day I received an e-mail (read: God spam) from my Sis. "This is a statement that was read over the PA system at the football game at Roane County High School, Kingston, Tennessee, by school Principal, Jody McLoud, on September 1, 2000. I thought it was worth sharing with the world and hope you will forward it to all your friends. It shows clearly just how far this country has gone in the wrong direction. "It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and country. Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it, "an alternate lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK. I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK. I can even use this public facility, to present the merits of killing an unborn baby, as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, no problem." OK ENOUGH!! That was just a portion of the e-mail, but you can get the "gist" of the idea.. the Christians are offended that someone somewhere cant say a prayer at a sporting event.. My reply was as fallows... (or at least the part that is pertinant to this posting) "Hey Sis, I am not looking to start an argument here or anything, but I fully support the separation of church and state, and I believe that is what the court ruling that is mentioned was supporting. Opinions on sexuality & birth control are different entirely. But lets say that there is a Jewish Guy on the football team.. is he to be subjected to the word of Jesus when his family has raised him to not believe in Jesus?.. I personally think that he shouldn't be. I also agree that if a Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu etc etc etc faithed person in an educational institution does not want to say "under God" in the pledge that is fine. I know we have had some different discussions on this topic but I really really strongly support the separation of Church and State..." She replied back that the separation of church and state (or at least how I understood it) was a phallusey (sp?) and has been twisted to mean what all of us anti-Christians want it to mean..(paraphrased) OK now after all of that hooey ( ) My question is this: What is the real root of the 'idea' of "Separation of Church and State"? I have read the 1st Ammendment and it does not specifically spell out that Church shall not be involved in the state, more the reverse.. that the Government can not interfere with Religious institutions.. HELP Be Well Bear

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-14-2002, 07:13 AM	#2
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	The purpose of separation of Chruch and State is exactly what this message was in response to. Giving the timing and description, this is "SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE, individually and as next friend for her minor children, et al." The basics of the case was the the school has a vast majority of Southern Baptists and were harassing the Catholic and Mormon children in the community. Unfortunately, the case is referred to in the popular press as the "Texas Football Prayer Case". The worst offenses took place in the school during school time, some by teachers. <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/009/7.19.html" target="_blank">Here</a> is a perfect example of how the case was purposely mislabled. From the story: "Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice argued Santa Fe's case before the Supreme Court. He says the decision "was clearly aimed at the Christian community at Santa Fe." Concerning Stevens' belief that allowing prayer isolates minority views, Sekulow says, "I think he's got it wrong. In a pluralistic and democratic society, you're oftentimes going to hear things you disagree with, but that's the price of freedom."" (end of quoting) The plaintiffs were Christians as well. The Baptist majority was doing to the non-Baptist minority what the larger Christian community has done to non-believers for some time. This is why there is the separation of Church and State. When you choose one religion as the national religion, then one sect of that religion can be chosen above all other sects (to paraphrase Madison in Memorial and Remonsterance, if memory serves). I wish I could find the article, but a Mormon newspaper did an excellent article on exactly why a Mormon would be in a case preventing prayer in school, and why all Mormons should support this action. A brief news story can be found <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer/" target="_blank">here</a>. The Supreme Court decision can be found <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-62" target="_blank">here</a>. The briefs can be found <a href="http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/mardocket.html#99-62" target="_blank">here</a>. The case being complained about was about Christians being persecuted by Christians. Then the popular US understanding somehow transmuted "Catholic and Mormon" to "atheists". Simian Edited to clarify where quotes are, and to add a paragraph about a mormon paper. [ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: simian ]</p>

11-14-2002, 07:20 AM	#3
B34RZ0R Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Lost in the Ether, Minnesota Posts: 1,436	Thanks For all the great info' Simian. I do still ask before the mentioned story: What is the root of alot of peoples conception or misconception of the seperation of church and state?.. Was I mistaken in that the basis for seperation of church and state was to keep the ideals of a religious group out of our government, which the 1st Amendment does not seem to spell out. Thanks again Be Well Bear

11-14-2002, 07:26 AM	#4
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	As I understand it, the purpose of the 1st Ammendment is to keep church and state separated to the corruption that occurred in Europe (and had occurred in the colonies as well) would not become become a part of the United States. If there were a national church, it would continue the abuses of power that was seen in the various colonies (being a Quaker was a hanging offense in some areas, non-Anglicans had to pay a tithe to the Anglican church in VA, if memory serves me). Fortunately many of the founders of this country were too well educated to think endorsing a "generic" Christianity was any better than endorsing a specific denomination. From what I have seen, Jefferson was very aware of Muslims and Hindus, as well as non-believers. A constitutional lawyer or historian would be a better person to comment on this, however. Simian

11-14-2002, 07:35 AM	#5
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	Bear, The best and most comprehensive online resource for church-state separation issues I've ever seen can be found <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Happy studying!

11-14-2002, 07:43 AM	#7
B34RZ0R Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Lost in the Ether, Minnesota Posts: 1,436	HEY thats my sister.. No she spelled it wrong (falesy)and so did I... damnit for not checking dictionary.com 1st But really our family can spell... Trust me Be Well Bear

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.