New Evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

[Busyman]

why are they asking for schools to set "moments for reflection". If a child wishes to pray he or she already has time during school hours to do it....it's called recess or break time.

WTH is wrong with a moment of silence or reflection?

If you don't want to reflect then STFU.

[vidcc]

why are they asking for schools to set "moments for reflection". If a child wishes to pray he or she already has time during school hours to do it....it's called recess or break time.

WTH is wrong with a moment of silence or reflection?

If you don't want to reflect then STFU.

They already have it
It would take time out of the school day that should be used for teaching and learning. Do you think American students need less study time?

[j2k4]

Apparently you are not sufficiently impressed by the terrorist acts which have occurred on our soil to suffer any additional security at all,

Oh yeah, that's right, our government's heightened response to catastrophe.

Can you say Katrina?

Probably not, sorry, you are the victim of 50 years of the liberally warped US education system, right?

How many of our Gitmo detainees have been tried and convicted?
Um right...that would be zero.

Oh yeah, the Patriot Act and Homeland Security...raving successes.

Katrina was not a terrorist act, last I heard, but leaving that for a moment, if not the (admittedly flawed) Patriot Act, what, alternatively?

[j2k4]

A few things, then:

As your google notes, the document has nothing in it about "separation".

This part-

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.

...doesn't set the table for what is currently taking place anent Christianity, and that part I've highlighted is a freedom, not a restriction.

The entire reason for the inclusion of any statement inclusive of both religion and government was to short-circuit any attempt by the government to establish a church on it's own behalf, AS HAD BEEN DONE IN ENGLAND.

The further intent of the language was to forestall any attempt by the government to infringe upon the religious practices of it's citizens, END OF STORY.

Jefferson's remarks were perfectly in line with this intent, as they meant that government was to be prevented by this "wall" from interfering in the free practice of religion, not the other way around, and the sum total of these wordings were an effort to avoid the religious persecution and strictures suffered under the Church of England; the source and progenitor of your wall.

There is an inherent recognition that government policy may be informed by religion, but is not beholden to it.

That is the sum total of original intent, and nothing more has ever been required, to this day.

I view it differently. you ignore the "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion" which is separation.

That phrase means precisely this:

"Congress (acting as the agent of the government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (by, or on behalf of, the government).

Our difference of opinion stems from your belief that words are made of elastic, not realizing that, especially when used in a document such as this, such elasticity is neither desired nor allowed.

[JPaul]

Does " ... an establishment of religion ..." mean Church, or Temple that sort of thing.

Or does it mean a religion being formed.

If not, what does the phrase actually mean.

[j2k4]

Does " ... an establishment of religion ..." mean Church, or Temple that sort of thing.

Or does it mean a religion being formed.

If not, what does the phrase actually mean.

To avoid the Church of England thing happening here.

Is was viewed as slightly oppressive, enough to warrant this mention in the Constitution, at any rate.

[vidcc]

Our difference of opinion stems from your belief that words are made of elastic, not realizing that, especially when used in a document such as this, such elasticity is neither desired nor allowed.

On the contrary I find your view of the words to be elastic

[JPaul]

So the 1st amendment was (included) that the Government would not establish a religion.

I have to say mate that this does seem to imply that, from the outset, your founding fathers wanted religion kept totally seperate from the State. Or at least from your government.

I have to then take the point that there should be no religious symbolism in places like courts or schools (save for private ones).

Also that there should be no mention of God in things like pledges.

It seems only sensible.

[j2k4]

Our difference of opinion stems from your belief that words are made of elastic, not realizing that, especially when used in a document such as this, such elasticity is neither desired nor allowed.

On the contrary I find your view of the words to be elastic

Then our debate is over.

[j2k4]

So the 1st amendment was (included) that the Government would not establish a religion.

I have to say mate that this does seem to imply that, from the outset, your founding fathers wanted religion kept totally seperate from the State. Or at least from your government.

I have to then take the point that there should be no religious symbolism in places like courts or schools (save for private ones).

Also that there should be no mention of God in things like pledges.

It seems only sensible.

Not merely that the government should not establish a religion, but that it adopt a hands-off stance with regard to the practice or choice of religion by it's citizens.

That the Founding Fathers wrote and abided this sentiment, then proceeded to salt their writings with religious reference should be considered the best indicator of their intent.

I don't recall off-hand, but as to the variety of religions represented among this gathering of men, I am sure were a variety of what are termed Christian religions as well as others.

The only proper conclusion would be that they agreed to adopt a passivity toward the religion/government relationship because the desire for an atmosphere of religious cohabitation was a founding premise, and also that they realized entertaining religious strictures while also attempting to formulate a new government incorporating religious freedom was a recipe for failure.

That they overlooked the eventuality the wider variety of immigration the future held would bring with it a selection of dieties not referred to as GOD should not preclude keeping the basic idea intact; indeed it should be expanded to make space for them, rather than constricted in any way, much less with any sort of selectivity.

Agree with this or not, that this is not clear to at least a few of you disheartens me beyond words.