Katherine Harris..."Sparation Church/State a lie..."

[Lulu2]

As I said...it's your opinion.

As a taxpayer, I don't enjoy seeing my educational dollars spent on excluding little children from the religious expressions of others. College is a great time to study comparative religion. Elementary school is not. And despite the fact that some statistics quote Americans as being 60% (or so) religious, there are many families who are not among the "faithful." Their tax dollars too, are spent, on nativity pageants, etc.

Interestingly, it's the Christians who cling so fervently to their "rights" to December Christmas pageants in public schools. Aren't churches enough?

[Felinessa]

Originally Posted by Lulu2

As a taxpayer, I don't enjoy seeing my educational dollars spent on excluding little children from the religious expressions of others.

What I don't understand is how a little kid would feel excluded by witnessing someone else's religious expression, especially if they all get a chance to showcase theirs. Should we then ban someone's presentation on his Mexican heritage then, for example, because all the other kids would feel excluded? Should we ban an Indian dance night because the non-Indian kids would feel excluded? I really don't understand where this doctrine of exclusionism and persecution comes from, but I think it's sad that occasions of learning from other cultures become perceived as occasions for exclusion.

Interestingly, it's the Christians who cling so fervently to their "rights" to December Christmas pageants in public schools. Aren't churches enough?

I think it only seems so because there are more Christians in the West than other faiths. Personally, if the Jewish community, or the Hindu community, or anyone else would want to organize celebrations, I'd be all about it. No, I don't subscribe to these faiths, but I honor the cultures that have developed around them and I intend to educate my children to be curious about and interested in other traditions.

As far as churches being enough, they are definitely enough for worship and religious education. But a Christmas pageant isn't either - it's simply a celebration. No one watching it is forced to believe it. As far as other religions go, many do not allow non-followers to enter their temples and attend their services. In these cases, I think a celebration would offer a rare opportunity for outsiders to witness something important about that particular culture.

Also, it seems that eliminating any kind of religious expression from schools clearly favours a single group: that without any religious affiliation. So doesn't that mean, logically, that all little kids, except those whose parents are non-religious, are excluded? Seems to me that there are about 60% of taxpayers out there who are funding something contrary to their beliefs.

[Adam Zapple]

Originally Posted by Lulu2

Interestingly, it's the Christians who cling so fervently to their "rights" to December Christmas pageants in public schools. Aren't churches enough?

LuLu, you know me well enough, and we've argued this enough, for you to know that I am not suggesting that schools be "compelled" to celebrate Christmas. The last Christmas pageant at my childrens' school was totally secular and it was wonderful. But had they thrown in a manger that would have been okay too. IT"S CHRISTMAS!! I don't want to force anyone to celebrate anything in schools - you on the other hand want to forbid everyone from celebrating something in schools. I'm well aware of how you feel about your tax dollars being spent on anything even remotely religious in nature but that has nothing to do with the Constitution. You may remember a thread I started on another board complaining about how I feel tax dollars are being wasted. We all have areas we don't find appropriate for federal funding but all we can do is appeal to our representatives to be better stewards of our money.

P.S. I'm not offended Felinessa but just want to point out that my religious beliefs would have most people put me in the "fundy" camp, or "Taliban" camp as LuLu would say (just pickin' ) but I don't think that excludes me from being a Christian. I simply do the best I can.

[bigdumbswede]

It's hard to sit calmly and listen to Katherine Harris says things like "the separation of church and state is a lie." This coming from the woman who gave us George Bush in 2000. Oh mamma mia. Somebody throw a net over her AND Pat Robertson!

I was just wondering if the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to allow the impeachment of a president who was never actually ELECTED in the first place??

Okay, this is a serious discussion thread, so I'll get out of here now. Just my feeble attempt to inject a little levity.

Thank you, Katherine Harris, yer doin' a heck of a job down there counting' those votes in Palm Beach County."

[zinkyusa]

Originally Posted by Adam Zapple

1. Ms. Harris is not dangerous, she is desperate. She has no chance of winning her Senate election and even the Republicans have been trying to force her out of the race for some time. So like a drowning rat, she is trying to grab on to anything to survive and only making matters worse in the process.

2. The conventional interpretation of "seperation of church and state" by those who wish to remove all vestiges of religion and/or religious expression from the public square does not match that of the founding fathers or the constitution. Thomas Jefferson, architect of the so-called seperation clause, attended church services in the Capitol. So clearly, he and others in his day did not mean to suggest that religion or religious expression must be prohibited from any connection with government. Simply that congress shall not enact a law establishing a religion or compelling citizens to worship as proscribed by government fiat or to worship at all. That is why the Constitution cleary states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

A little second grader singing "Joy To The World" at Christmas doesn't meet the first standard of the clause but banning such songs definitely violates the second.

That is just your opinion. Jeffersons writings clearly indicate he wanted "a wall of separation" between church ans state. The Supreme Court has often referred to them in their decisions upholding the principle.

[Lulu2]

Oh, fiddle-faddle, ADAM : " IT"S CHRISTMAS!! I don't want to force anyone to celebrate anything in schools - you on the other hand want to forbid everyone from celebrating something in schools. "

++++++++++++ Explain to me why it's necessary for people to celebrate RELIGIOUS themes in public schools when they have churches for that purpose. I have no problem whatsoever with children having spring concerts, glee club recitals, bands, orchestras, etc. This fits right in with the school prayer issue, of course. Christians always ask "What's wrong with that? A little prayer never hurt anyone!" (Funny...I've never heard a Jewish/Buddhist/Wiccan ask the same question.)

FELINESSA "What I don't understand is how a little kid would feel excluded by witnessing someone else's religious expression, especially if they all get a chance to showcase theirs."

+++++++++++++++ See above. As someone who is not religious and raised a child without the dubious benefits of relgion, I remember being called upon to help recite a prayer during my own graduation ceremonies. I felt very excluded and anyone who's outside that "norm" feels the same way.

I keep asking....why is it necessary for public schools to use public funds to provide for religious expression? Can't they spend that money on band instruments, or math books or even (gasp) raises for teachers?


(Edited to comment on ADAM'S "my religious beliefs would have most people put me in the "fundy" camp, or "Taliban" camp as LuLu would say (just pickin' ) but I don't think that excludes me from being a Christian. I simply do the best I can"

+++++ I know you do, Dear, and I respect you for NOT imposing your vision on the rest of us. UNLIKE many "fundamentals" who believe that what THEY believe should be what we ALL believe (and thus, the "TALIBAN-ish" imposition of laws, codes of behavior, etc.) you do seem to have a "live and let live" approach. Ms. Harris's insistence that a vote for non-Christians is a vote against morality is a good example. Giving tax-exempt status to a "Creationist" theme park is another. If you don't see that there are people just like her wishing they could be in control of this country/world, then I'd ask you to take another, unbiased look.

A "radical fundamentalist" is just that....and some of them wear turbans and some of them flaunt crosses.

Oh yeah Christian sharia

[Felinessa]

As someone who is not religious and raised a child without the dubious benefits of relgion, I remember being called upon to help recite a prayer during my own graduation ceremonies. I felt very excluded and anyone who's outside that "norm" feels the same way.

But we are talking about very different things here. Participating in a prayer is not the same thing as watching a pageant. I don't think anyone should be asked to participate in something they don't agree with or that doesn't match their personal beliefs. I am most definitely NOT in favour of prayer in schools or lending official ceremonies religious undertones.

But a pageant is like a school play, only it celebrates a religious theme. Kids that don't come from that background shouldn't have to do it. But if more traditions celebrated their holidays, every kid would get the chance to participate in something that matches his/her beliefs.

So if we draw the difference here, it doesn't look or sound as scary.

[Adam Zapple]

LuLu wrote:

I keep asking....why is it necessary for public schools to use public funds to provide for religious expression? Can't they spend that money on band instruments, or math books or even (gasp) raises for teachers?

I'm not suggesting that's an unreasonable question for you to ask, but not every one shares your views. Schools spend far more money trying to walk the line of seperation than they would just letting parents and teachers run the individual schools. I'm more of a community standards kind of guy. In a school in a Jewish community I wouldn't expect to see a Christmas pagaent and no one should force them to have one but they should be able to celebrate and acknowledge Jewish traditions if such celebrations are a big part of the community at large. Same goes for small-town Alabama in the Bible belt. I understand you are opposed to such things but it isn't unconstitutional to do so. I don't agree with everything they do in schools either.


zinky said:

That is just your opinion. Jeffersons writings clearly indicate he wanted "a wall of separation" between church ans state. The Supreme Court has often referred to them in their decisions upholding the principle.

First of all, I quoted the First Amendment so it isn't just my opinion. Secondly, read these letters and tell me what Jefferson's intentions were. Thirdly, it doesn't matter because his letter to the Dansbury Baptist is just that - a letter. It isn't the Constitution upon which our laws are based. If the SCOTUS is using it to determine what is and isn't constitutional then that is a prime example of what is wrong with the judiciary.

Letter from the Danbury Baptist Association to Jefferson:

Sir,

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoy’d in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty – That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals – That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions – That the legitimate Power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws & usages, & such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power & gain under the pretence of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men – should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the united States is not the national Legislator & also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cal’d you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermin’d opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh’h Dodge

Eph’m Robbins }The Committee

Stephen S. Nelson

Clearly the Baptist are concerned that their religious liberties may one day be constrained or forbidden by the government. They appealed to Jefferson to use his bully pulpit to keep the legislature from passing laws that would "reproach their fellow men" because of their beliefs. Jefferson responded:

To mess. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th. Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

Jefferson was certainly for seperation of church and state...I'm for seperation of church and state. But to our founders "seperation" did not mean "omission" or "prohibition". My goodness, just take a look around Washington, DC. Religious symbolism is everywhere in the architecture and documents created by our nations founders. Jefferson attended church services in the Capitol. Clearly he did not believe any religious expression should be prohibited on government property. The seperation argument has been taken to an extreme by those who simply want to impose their "anti" or "non" religous views on the rest of us. The Constitution is more clear than most want to acknowledge. Congress can make no law towards the establishment of religion. The only argument is over the definition of "establishment". However, since Congress didn't make a law establishing the Mt. Soledad cross, or the 10 Commandments on a plaque, or a creche or manorrah on a courthouse lawn the seperation clause simply doesn't apply.

[KARENSVINEYARD]

Originally Posted by Lulu2

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."

The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage.

Harris made the comments -- which she clarified Saturday -- in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, which interviewed political candidates and asked them about religion and their positions on issues.

Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said.

Her comments drew criticism, including some from fellow Republicans, who called them offensive and not representative of the party.

++++++++++++++ Guess Ms. Harris never read Jefferson's thoughts on establishment of "a Christian state." Interesting that "some fellow Republicans" backed away from her.

howdie LULU, always get a kick out of readin' your posts. as far as politics the politicians have it all screwed up trying to do one without the other. i wouldnt really know how to put it to make it sound the way i want but i gotta say all this taken away of god/ pledge/ public faith declarations in public schools is a bunch of crap if the gov't that decided it bases the judiciary on God. the president standin' at the podium running the country and deciding on no gay marriage because its (marriage)christianly sacred then shunning the rest of the nation from declaring a God, is the biggest bunch of hoopla if i ever did hear it. if they're testing the waters or tryin to ease the nation to scientific reality their doin a sh*ty job of it.