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

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:37 am

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.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:40 am

Lulu2 wrote: 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.

It's obvious she hasn't read the US Constitution either..:-5

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:55 am

Interesting gamble she's taking....hoping for the support of Christians who believe what she says and hoping there are enough of them to get her elected. Of course, she's in Florida and we all remember the fiasco in the last Presidential election.....

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:59 am

Lulu2 wrote: Interesting gamble she's taking....hoping for the support of Christians who believe what she says and hoping there are enough of them to get her elected. Of course, she's in Florida and we all remember the fiasco in the last Presidential election.....

Yes, the Congressional seat was her gift from the Bush administrattion for helping to steal the election..

I think things have changed in the last two years and the Republicans will not be very happy this November..

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:20 am

From your lips......

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:27 am

Lulu2 wrote: From your lips......

Don't get me started, I'm something of a lonely spirit here in Redneck central..

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:32 am

zinkyusa wrote: It's obvious she hasn't read the US Constitution either..:-5

um, while i don't subscribe to her views, the fact is, nowhere in the constitution does it maintain that there must be separate of church and state.

if you can quote where it says "separation of church and state", i'll eat my hat.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:42 am

anastrophe wrote: um, while i don't subscribe to her views, the fact is, nowhere in the constitution does it maintain that there must be separate of church and state.

if you can quote where it says "separation of church and state", i'll eat my hat.

Is this a trick question?:D Of course the Constitution does not use those specific words but the First Ammendment states:

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.

The separation is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group called the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, he quotes the First Amendment and writes: "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 and State." Letter to Danbury Baptists (1802)

Do I pass?:)

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:00 pm

zinkyusa wrote: Don't get me started, I'm something of a lonely spirit here in Redneck central..

Hardly Zinky.

This woman is dangerous, even Republicans should be able to see that!

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:02 pm

CheshireCat wrote: Hardly Zinky.

This woman is dangerous, even Republicans should be able to see that!

One can always hope C2..

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:07 pm

zinkyusa wrote: Is this a trick question?:D Of course the Constitution does not use those specific words but the First Ammendment states:

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.

The separation is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group called the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, he quotes the First Amendment and writes: "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 and State." Letter to Danbury Baptists (1802)

Do I pass?:)

that's all well and good. and Thomas Jefferson is a rightfully revered founder of the nation. But he was not a member of the constitutional convention, and his personal writings on the matter, while important, and significant, are not the constitution, and are not the law of the land.

The first amendment specifically stated that there was to be no national, official church. this a direct response to the official, national church of england, which is one of the foremost reasons the US came into existence in the first place.

the first amendment does not say that there can be no expression of religious belief by individuals within government. in fact, it specifically prohibits any restriction on the exercise of religion (which includes religious expression).

i'll reiterate, i don't share ms. harris's views.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:25 pm

anastrophe wrote: that's all well and good. and Thomas Jefferson is a rightfully revered founder of the nation. But he was not a member of the constitutional convention, and his personal writings on the matter, while important, and significant, are not the constitution, and are not the law of the land.

The first amendment specifically stated that there was to be no national, official church. this a direct response to the official, national church of england, which is one of the foremost reasons the US came into existence in the first place.

the first amendment does not say that there can be no expression of religious belief by individuals within government. in fact, it specifically prohibits any restriction on the exercise of religion (which includes religious expression).

i'll reiterate, i don't share ms. harris's views.

No but James Madison was a framer:

Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

Against establishment of religion

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

If the Church of England had been the established and general religion and all the northern colonies as it has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed throughout the continent, it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insulated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence and ecclesiastical establishments tend to grate ignorance and corruption all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects (Letter to William Bradford, Jan. 24, 1774).

[T]he prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that religion could not be preserved without the support of government nor government be supported without an established religion that there must be at least an alliance of some sort between them. It remained for North America to bring the great and interesting subject to a fair, and finally a decisive test.

It is true that the New England states have not discontinued establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or good government.

But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).

There are numerous other framers who made it clear this was also ther view.

I disagree that separation of church and state is not the law of the land. There is esatblished case law and numerous Supreme Court decisions that say other wise.

Specifically:

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (19470)

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971).

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow was overturned by the Supreme Court on Flag Day, June 14, 2004

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:05 pm

zinkyusa wrote: I disagree that separation of church and state is not the law of the land.

since i didn't contend that that was the case, your disagreement is with thin air.

flooding with quotes from founders doesn't contradict a single word i've said.

do you know what "establishment" means? all of these quotes have to do with that. they have to do with *formal* influence of religion within government. the separate of church and state has to do with establishment. however, it has been conflated to include any and all *informal* expression of religion, which is in itself a violation of the first amendment.

anti-theists demanding that a cross on public property be destroyed because it violates separate of church and state are full of horseshit, if i may use the more polite term. they are trying to force their rejection of religion onto those who may either practice a religion, or those who may not give the slightest damn about religion. they are violating the right to free expression, by conflating informal expression with formal recognition.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:30 pm

anastrophe wrote: since i didn't contend that that was the case, your disagreement is with thin air.

flooding with quotes from founders doesn't contradict a single word i've said.

do you know what "establishment" means? all of these quotes have to do with that. they have to do with *formal* influence of religion within government. the separate of church and state has to do with establishment. however, it has been conflated to include any and all *informal* expression of religion, which is in itself a violation of the first amendment.

anti-theists demanding that a cross on public property be destroyed because it violates separate of church and state are full of horseshit, if i may use the more polite term. they are trying to force their rejection of religion onto those who may either practice a religion, or those who may not give the slightest damn about religion. they are violating the right to free expression, by conflating informal expression with formal recognition.

My friend I am not trying to contradict what you say. Everything you have said is your own interpretation or opinion eloquently phrased.

I am trying to demonstrate by using the quotes what was in the minds of the original framers of the Constitution in this case James Madison (since you didn't care for the Mr. Jefferson quotes) in order to provide some concrete basis for what I have to say. That is also the reason I cited the court cases. These cases are facts not my opinion.

Your opinions and interpretations like mine don't amount to hill of beans. The Constitution unfortunately was vague in it's language on some questions and it has been up to those who govern, teach, and study law to interprate the it in some instances. Court decisions have been made and they clearly uphold the view of the orginal framers of the Constitution that there is and will be maintained a separation between the institutions of relgion and governance.

I'm not going to argue further with you about your opinions. I enjoy debating this issue but please provide us something besides you own interpretations to work with.

I'll be following this thread and look forward to more discussion with you>:D

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:34 pm

Anastrophe, enough hair-splitting! It would appear we're all on the same "page" here. This woman has announced that Christians should only vote for Christians because a vote for anyone else is a vote for "legislating sin."

I'm hoping it's just the last gasp of someone who's desperate to stay in a race she can't win.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:16 pm

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.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:58 pm

Ah, Adam...I wondered when you'd raise this one. Little children singing "Joy to the World" are charming...in churches or in homes or on street corners, carolling. Christmas pageants in public schools, funded by public funds have no business being there.

But you KNEW I'd say that, didn't you? :wah:

Felinessa · Post by **Felinessa** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:43 pm

If she imagines she'll be garnering Christian support, she's out of luck. I think most Christians are moderate and support the separation of Church and State. Sure, she'll rally the fundies, but the road from Christian to fundie is a long and strenuous one :wah:

Lulu2 wrote: Christmas pageants in public schools, funded by public funds have no business being there.

That I don't agree with (and nope, I'm not hounding you, Lulu :wah: ). I see absolutely nothing wrong with the celebration of religious traditions, as long as it's done equitably and everyone gets a chance to highlight their own. A Christmas pageant is not an attempt to preach or convert, and non-Christian kids should obviously be excused from participating. But there are other religions celebrating holidays in December, and I think this would be a good opportunity to introduce children to Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, for example. I also think it would be a great idea for the families of kids attending the same school to do swaps on religious holidays: there are feasts for the end of Ramadan, Passover dinners, Easter dinners, processions, etc, and inviting a child of another faith could open up his/her horizons and widen the understanding and acceptance of others' traditions. Kids are generally brimming with curiosity and I think they would appreciate sharing in a different holiday. It's important to remember that children aren't born bigots - they are turned into bigots by prejudiced parents and by a system which doesn't really encourage mixing with others.

As far as the taxpayers' money goes, it suffices to take a look to a chart to establish a couple of things ( Chart ):

1. the vast majority of Americans have a religious affiliation

2. the vast majority of Americans with a religious affiliation are Christian

I'm not saying at all that ONLY Christian traditions should be celebrated, as the rest of my post proves. But the tax-money that funds public schools comes, overwhelmingly, from people with a religious affiliation. So, to me, it makes little sense to justify the exclusion of religious celebrations from schools on the basis of the tax-money argument.

I'd like to stress here that I do not support religious instruction per se. Although having World Religions classes or topic classes in various religions, taught by historians, is a completely different matter. But allowing religious clubs to function, or religious festivities and celebrations to go on, could only be an enriching experience. If anything, one could make an informed decision to become an atheist, if nothing appears satisfactory.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:49 pm

Yours is a valid opinion, of course and one which is shared by Christians around this country. As one who grew up without that faith, I find it exclusive, unnecessary and especially inappropriate for public funds to be spent educating small children in religious observances.

If you wish to teach children choral singing, stage presence, creative writing, acting skills....there are other ways.

If you wish to exclude children, put on a Christmas pageant and see what happens to those who don't celebrate the nativity.

Just my opinion....not up for debate because it can't be settled. The old "majority rules" argument isn't exactly appropriate, is it? After all, there was a time when "the majority" believed blacks to be inferior, mixed-race marriages immoral and Christianity to be the ONLY religion.

Felinessa · Post by **Felinessa** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:09 am

Lulu2 wrote:

If you wish to exclude children, put on a Christmas pageant and see what happens to those who don't celebrate the nativity.

Um, they are going to learn something about how other kids celebrate a holiday? Since when is watching something that you don't practice an occasion for exclusion? Do you feel excluded when you go watch Kabuki?

I've never felt excluded watching other people's celebrations. I've watched with interest and it prompted me to read up on their traditions. I was an exchange student in high school, and I took a World Religions class. The teacher arranged for Jewish and Muslim scholars to visit, and took us to a synagogue, a Buddhist centre, (where we listened to a very interesting session on meditation), and a Hindu temple. I felt very privileged to see the beautiful old Torah scrolls, for example. I think all the kids in the class benefitted from the exposure to various forms of worship.

Plus, all cultures have beautiful myths which have been staged theatrically. Would Christian kids feel excluded if they watched Chinese New Year celebrations? Would they feel excluded if they watched a dramatization of parts of the Mahabharata and learned some Hindu mythology? I think it wouldn't occur to them to feel excluded if adults left them alone.

My impression is that when everyone else celebrates part of their culture and religion, it's okay because non-Christian=multicultural=good. Christian=bad and exclusionist. That's exactly the kind of attitude which fosters reverse discrimination (I'm not saying you support that, Lulu, but others do). So it's basically from mud to swamp. Perhaps if we encouraged our kids to watch with interest, take mental notes, and then read up on what they saw, they'd regard celebrations as an occasion for learning, not for being excluded.

Again, I underline the fact that I'm for ALL kinds of religious celebrations, not just Christian ones.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:18 am

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 · Post by **Felinessa** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:23 am

Lulu2 wrote: 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 · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:28 am

Lulu2 wrote: 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.:-6

bigdumbswede · Post by **bigdumbswede** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:32 am

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 · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:17 am

Adam Zapple wrote: 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 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:49 am

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.

Felinessa · Post by **Felinessa** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:22 pm

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 · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:33 pm

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 · Post by **KARENSVINEYARD** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:39 pm

Lulu2 wrote: 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.

KARENSVINEYARD · Post by **KARENSVINEYARD** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:53 pm

Lulu2 wrote: 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?

I took a couple of courses in college youd probably get into. "The Bible as Literature". its neato (did that sound corny). anywho, personally i believe that everybody needs a something to believe in to ground em and give purpose. Anything. on one hand i think people should be allowed to declare what they believe in, on the other keep it from being pushed down somebody else's throat as if they're saying your wrong. Anybody should be allowed to say "my belief in god has changed my life." or "my crystal ball changed my life." growin' up i always thought they had the wrong idea by teaching kids to appreciate each other because we're all the same. i really think we should teach kids to appreciate each other because on INSIDE we are all different. that we're all our own person. i dont know, that sound weird? hope i said that alright i'm not much for upset'n people.

KARENSVINEYARD · Post by **KARENSVINEYARD** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:57 pm

i should correct the above alittle by saying i believe that i'd prefer to teach my own children to appreciate one another because we're all different. parents know their kids best ya know. what's right for one family, may not work with another.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:27 pm

Adam Zapple wrote:

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:

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:

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.

Hmm, somehow I missed your response Adam. Anyway I don't disagree with some of what you say. We were discussing Ms Harris's claims that separation of c & s is a lie etc...

I was refering to this statement when I said it was your opinion not the First Ammendment quote:

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.

I totally disagree. The Founding Fathers, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."

As for Jefferson, I doubt if most Christians consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

If the Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it seems highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There are only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Although as you say Jefferson's letters are just letters, his writings are referenced in some important court decisions and therfore they are important.

I don't care if kids celebrate Christmas and other traditions in school I think it is enjoyable as long as all faiths get their say.

You may have mistaken my comments to mean that I am totally against the display of all relgious symbols etc in government buildings. I was responding more to Ms. Harris's incorrect statements.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:55 pm

zinkyusa wrote: Hmm, somehow I missed your response Adam. Anyway I don't disagree with some of what you say. We were discussing Ms Harris's claims that separation of c & s is a lie etc...

I was refering to this statement when I said it was your opinion not the First Ammendment quote:

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.

I totally disagree. The Founding Fathers, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."

As for Jefferson, I doubt if most Christians consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

If the Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it seems highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There are only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Although as you say Jefferson's letters are just letters, his writings are referenced in some important court decisions and therfore they are important.

I don't care if kids celebrate Christmas and other traditions in school I think it is enjoyable as long as all faiths get their say.

You may have mistaken my comments to mean that I am totally against the display of all relgious symbols etc in government buildings. I was responding more to Ms. Harris's incorrect statements.

Thanks for your response, zinky. After reading your post, we are not in disagreement that I can see. My point being that there are those who say the constitution forbids even the most vague reference to God in any manner on government property (ie the Soledad cross in California) and use Jefferson's letter as proof. I respond that I find that impossible since he attended church services that were being held inside the Capitol Building. I also keep pointing out the First Amendment which forbids only Congress from passing a law in respect to the establishment of religion. That they try to apply that clause to a podunk town in the Bible belt that puts a manger scene on the courthouse lawn, or to a menorah in a Yonkers school during Hannukah, or to a kid in school that references God in a speech, or to a memorial cross in California is a mystery to me. Those things have nothing to do with Congress passing a law. The 10th Amendment states, "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." Since the constitution doesn't give the Fed the right to butt into local holiday display matters, it is a issue for the states and the people. For those who don't like that, ie ACLU, should change the constitution.

KARENSVINEYARD · Post by **KARENSVINEYARD** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:56 pm

[QUOTE=zinkyusa].

I don't care if kids celebrate Christmas and other traditions in school I think it is enjoyable as long as all faiths get their say

absolutely.