Originally Posted by punky

Certainly sounds OTT to me. I can understand how freedom of speech sometimes has to be roped in a bit to try and keep everyone in harmonious accord, but who is he really offending by doing that?

Originally Posted by punky

I know some Americans have definitely felt that the separation between church and state was not done effectively enough. Some of it is ridiculously trivial (like the battle to remove the 10 commandments from a court in Alabama), to this, which I think is incredible. The fact remains though, who was honestly going to be seriously offended by what he did? I'd like to think even the most hardened relgious fanatic would see it as a harmless gesture.

Originally Posted by kronas

you do realise how stongly most americans feel about the 'pledge of allegiance' i dont think they would want it to be changed in anyway.

he was still well within his right to do so.

Originally Posted by kronas

the pledge of allegence is what many americans think is partiotism, but to one youngster its a little 'diffarent.......

kenny hess was doing a school broadcasting project and choose the american 'pledge of allegiance' as his topic in a rendition sung by millions he ommited the words 'under god' hess is an athiest and choose to take those words out and instead recite the rest of the pledge.

much to the dismay of school officials, the 18 year old has been banned from using equipment and is currently confined to reading text books

source:tribnet

http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/49...-4848428c.html

well he did the right thing, why include something you dont believe in.........

Originally Posted by Graham

Good for him!

Unfortunately it just demonstrates that, once again, America is the "Land of the Free to Say Things that We Agree With".

So like all those countries out there they criticise...!!! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by punky

I know some Americans have definitely felt that the separation between church and state was not done effectively enough.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Where in the Constitution is this separation of church and state you speak of?

Originally Posted by Theodoric

Well, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." which, if not a separation, definitely seems to prohibit enforcing any particular religion.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Where in the Constitution is this separation of church and state you speak of?

Originally Posted by US Constitution's 1st Amendment

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.

Originally Posted by Feedback reply at TalkOrigins

Yes, we are very interested in the education of our readers. While this topic is not the subject of this website, it does have some important implications.

It is true that the phrase "Separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution; but neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles. The judicial system has enterpreted the "Establishment Clause" to mean:


"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."
Justice Hugo Black, Majority opinion, Everson v Board of Education

This means that no one religious denomination has the right to force its particular beliefs about the origins of life into the public school system. This is how the issue relates to evolution

The claim that the "Wall of Separation" is a 'one-way' wall is a myth propagated by Christian revisionist David Barton. The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 7), but in fact says the opposite: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)

If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so? In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson, like most of the key founders of this country, was not a Christian. He was a deist, and expressed views that were quite unsympathetic to Christianity.

When Jefferson made statements like "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." it is clear that he intended the Wall of Separation to be a 2-way protection, keeping government out of religion, but also keeping religion out of government. A good list of such quotes from our founding fathers can be found here.

Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs. This country is clearly founded on secular laws.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under the shadow of McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy. These violations of the separation of church and state have been, and will continue to be, contested in the courts. See the Pledge of Allegiance Restoration Act

Originally Posted by Jerrek

There is nothing in the Constitution that demands a separation of church and state. The First Amendment has applies to the Congress, the federal government, not the State governments. State governments have a right to create a state church. The Founding Fathers didn't want Congress to establish a national church. They did not intend to forbid every little activity on government property.

Originally Posted by punky

I always thought that the separation between church and state, was meant that the country would be ruled by elected officials, not by the ledaer of the predominant religion. I.e. the opposite of what something like Iran has. That churches and religious clerics have no power in running the country.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? The first amendment seems to protect the right of free worship. The separation may not be in the constitution, but is surely preferable nonetheless?

Originally Posted by Russ D

Next they'll be demanding the word 'God' be removed from all religious institutions......

Originally Posted by Jerrek

How does the actions of a few individuals equate "America?" Isn't this just pure...ignorance? Yes I think it is. ;)

Originally Posted by punky

I always thought that the separation between church and state, was meant that the country would be ruled by elected officials, not by the ledaer of the predominant religion. I.e. the opposite of what something like Iran has. That churches and religious clerics have no power in running the country.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? The first amendment seems to protect the right of free worship. The separation may not be in the constitution, but is surely preferable nonetheless?

Originally Posted by danielf

I think the whole idea of pledging allegiance to a flag at the start of any day is silly anyway. What point does it serve exactly? :shrug:

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, I'm sure you would.

So, I tell you what, I'll come over to the US, after joining the Communist Party and becoming a Muslim, then I'll burn the Stars and Stripes, spit on the Constitution and stand up in front of the White House and say that George W Bush is a warmongering murderer who has sold his soul to the big oil companies and who only got the job because his mates in the judiciary fixed things for him.

I'm sure that I won't have *ANY* problems, don't you agree...???

Originally Posted by Jerrek

If there is no point to it, then there is no need to be worried about it, eh?

Originally Posted by jerrek

Question all authority? No. The citizens chose to put that law on the books, and who are YOU to tell them they are wrong?

Originally Posted by Jerrek

People here do it all the time.

Originally Posted by danielf

So what is the point to it? It was a question you know.

Originally Posted by Graham

And there are many Americans (not just the "few" you mention) who would like me arrested/ not allowed to express my views/ not allowed to follow my religion/ investigated by the FBI and the security services *FOR* exercising my *FREEDOM* under the US Constitution.

Still, that's no problem, eh?

Originally Posted by Jerrek

To me there is a point, and I want to keep it. If you see it as pointless, why complain? Let the rest of us that value it keep it. :)

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Not really. I don't buy into this restricting free speech thing. If you do anything illegal, well then, off to jail.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Just visit San Fransisco when they have one of their "peace" rallies where they destroy there city blocks in no time, waving Palestinian and Marxist-type flags, burning American flags, and singing praises to the U.N. and that Palestinian terrorist that had the accident with the Israeli missile.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

So? Recall my question was Where in the Constitution?

The Supreme Court gives an opinion.

Originally Posted by Tezcatlipoca

Yes, but my understanding is that Supreme Court opinions *are* then therefore the law. So if the SC says that the "Establishment Clause" of the 1st Amendment applies to State governments as well as the Federal government, then that is how it is (unless a later SC ruling changes it), no matter what the actual text of the Constitution says.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

So tell me, which way do you think did the Founding Fathers intend us to go? This ridiculous path where you can't even pray in school? Or the path I'm advocating?

Originally Posted by downquark1

Irreverent, it was a long time ago and they're dead, guessing at what they meant would be a pointless and controversial exercise. The constitution isn't suppose to be a holy text where you 2nd guess and take things differently.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Many well-educated men, including Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and Thomas Paine.

Originally Posted by Russ D

But what's so significant about them that they were given that name, or is it just a casual term?

Originally Posted by Jerrek

That document is responsible more than anything for making the United States the most prosperous nation in the world. It isn't irrelevant. It is the foundation of our nation.

Originally Posted by downquark1

No I meant, guessing what the founders wrote it for is irreverent. Whether they wrote it to prevent praying to schools etc.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Clearly, it isn't, because it is being brought up today in courts. We know what the Constitution says, and we know what the Federalist Papers say, and we know what they meant. Yet the Supreme Court ruled differently. And that is the issue at hand. I fail to see how you can just say "it is irrelevant." It isn't!

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No he did not. He can exercise his right to free speech elsewhere. He was expected to recite the pledge, the full pledge, not his own made-up one. If they gave him the liberty to recite a poem as he see fit, then fine, recite what you like.

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

He didn't make up the pledge, He actually recited the original. The words "Under God" are a 20th Century addition