student reprimanded for modification of pledge.......

[Tezcatlipoca]

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.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted it differently to you

(yes, I know I've already quoted this....)

"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

EDIT:

The First Amendment has applies to the Congress, the federal government, not the State governments

Also, I thought that the Constitution, and its Amendments, applied to the whole country - not just the Federal government - While anything *not* specifically mentioned in the Constitution remained the preserve of the individual States.

Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

[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?

[Russ]

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

Next time a couple of kids like those two idiots a few years back take their handguns to school and blast their fellow classmates to bits and someone asks "so where is your God now?", who'll be the first to turn around and say "don't blame us, you've been trying to remove Him from schools for years..."?

Sorry, just thought of that and had to say it

[Tezcatlipoca]

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?

No power over the government for any religious authority, & also no power over any religion for the government (a "two way wall" of separation). No bias towards one faith or another, and so on.

And definitely preferable.

Have a look at the quote from TalkOrigins in this earlier post if you haven't already: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...5&postcount=14 - explains a lot there.

Also, I've just found this: Introduction to the Principle of Separation of Church & State


Although the Constitution itself doesn't mention "separation of Church & State", the US Supreme Court has ruled on the issue more than once, & set precedent. And what they say goes. If they say something is or is not constitutional, then that's the way it is (unless a later ruling changes it of course, lol). So Justice Black's opinion (quoted earlier) is the law, it is effectively part of the Constitution, even if what he says it doesn't actually appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Russ D

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

Well, why would they? That's a completely different thing.

No one religion should be a state religion. But just because religion (of any kind/faith) should not be in goverment, doesn't mean that anyone would think that religion shouldn't be in, well, religion.

This is talking about someone removing "Under God" from something which never originally had the words in it anyway, & which shouldn't really have them. Why should non-Christian Americans have to say "Under God?" when they say the Pledge?

Next time a couple of kids like those two idiots a few years back take their handguns to school and blast their fellow classmates to bits and someone asks "so where is your God now?", who'll be the first to turn around and say "don't blame us, you've been trying to remove Him from schools for years..."?

Sorry, just thought of that and had to say it

LOL, no need to say sorry to anyone

[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?

Anything that by law needs to repeated to school children at that frequency needs to be questioned and scrutinized in my opinion....

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.

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...???

[Jerrek]

The US Supreme Court has interpreted it differently to you

So? Recall my question was Where in the Constitution?

The Supreme Court gives an opinion. Read the Federalist Papers.

Also, I thought that the Constitution, and its Amendments, applied to the whole country - not just the Federal government - While anything *not* specifically mentioned in the Constitution remained the preserve of the individual States.

That is nice, but look:

Amendment I

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.


How the S.C. managed to get to equal Congress with Congress, federal government, and State governments is still a mystery.

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?

No, you're right. The church shouldn't be running the country. They shouldn't be issuing the laws. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that states the federal government can't be influenced by religion.

Although the Constitution itself doesn't mention "separation of Church & State",

THANK YOU.

That is all I wanted to hear. The Constitution didn't expressly prohibit it, and certainly not to the State governments. The ****ing federal government has no jurisdiction over the State governments in this area!!

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?

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

Anything that by law needs to repeated to school children at that frequency needs to be questioned and scrutinized in my opinion....

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 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...???

Yes I do. People here do it all the time.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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

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?

Read the post. Especially the 'in my opinion' bit...

Originally Posted by Jerrek

People here do it all the time.

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?

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by danielf

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

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.

[Jerrek]

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?

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

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.

[danielf]

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.

So, What is the point of it to you?

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.

And you don't see just the *slightest* possible contradiction between the two???

[downquark1]

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.

I'd never thought I'd see all of those in one paragraph

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

So? Recall my question was Where in the Constitution?

The Supreme Court gives an opinion.

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.

Read the Federalist Papers.

*Googles the Federalist Papers*

Interesting. I think I will. Thanks for the pointer.