Makes sense to me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:21 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Perhaps not, but the question is more complex. Imagine if you were to put a
triptych in a courthouse with scenes from the Christian Bible, the Jewish
Torah, and the Islamic Koran. Then you have a Buddhist appear to argue a
parking ticket. Do you think that he would feel that he would get a fair
trial? Further, suppose the local Wiccan congregation or Atheists ask to put
something up. That just might not go over well.
See where it can lead...?
-----Original Message-----
From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:15 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
An excerpt from the Koran and the Jewish "bible" (not sure of the proper
name) would not offend me if I saw it in a public place. I wouldn't think
twice about it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:12 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Those who offer an intelligent challenge to the ten commandments being
displayed in "public" places (better to say government facilities, i.e. the
courthouse in Alabama) do not necessarily object to their display. They do,
however, request that all religions have "equal access" to display something
of their religion. I.E. - the commandments would have been fine had other
religions been allowed to post some sort of icon of their religion in the
courthouse. This was actually requested and denied in the Alabama case.
Therefore, you have a government facility implicitly favoring one religion
over all others, which is where the problem lied.
-----Original Message-----
From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:01 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
this is what some people use in the removal of the ten commandments from
public places and prayer in schools arguments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:55 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
Sort of. The Constitution states "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof..."
The concept was partly to prevent what had happened in England with
the King and Church duking it out. But there were people immigrating
to the US from more than just England and even those from England were
coming from different religious backgrounds. They were fleeing
persecution from a state sanctioned religion and were not terribly
interested in being persecuted under another state sanctioned
religion. It's the first sentence of the first amendment, so it was
obviously something they were concerned about.
The intent is to allow Americans to worship and believe as they see
fit without persecution. Thomas Jefferson understood that that can't
happen if there is a state sanctioned religion which is why he put it
in the Constitution.
In Danbury, CT there was a Congregationalist church that was using the
State government to levy taxes on all people in the town to pay for
the church. The Baptist minority in the town weren't too pleased about
it and they appealed to Jefferson. In his historic 1802 letter to the
Baptist Association of Danbury Jefferson stated:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church
and State."
So while the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not explicitly
in the Constitution. The same author, in explaining the intent of the
First Amendment, coined that phrase. It's not part of the document,
but it's canon.
-Kevin
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 13:28:03 -0400, Monique Boea
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have not had the time to research this (on my to-do list, so don't jump
> down my throat if it is not true :-)) but I heard a report once that said,
> the constitution says nothing about church and state being separate
instead
> it says that the government cannot interfere in the creation of a
religion.
> EX; If I wanted to worship cats, the govnt. can't tell me I can't.
>
> Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?
>
>
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
