[tlj009]

Seriously. You say you support a seperation of church and state: who would have to promote a religion for it to be state sponsorship? The school-board member? How is that different from a judge?

I said that I believe that the government should be silent on religion. I think that they should award the valedictorian position to the most qualified person and allow her to right her speech without censoring religion out of it. I don't think that the valedictorian is representing the government positions on anything but is just representing herself. Take a guy giving a speech for Coke. If he says that he loves Pepsi a lot more than Coke, is it illegal? It is probably a bad career move but I don't think that it is illegal.

No, that was not my example. Screaming profanities does not make you a non-asset. You are just as good an engineer.

Then who came up with the profanities example? It does make you less of an asset to the company. You may still be a good engineer, but if you lose clients or disrupt other employee's work, then you won't have a job.

Do you agree that they are not violating your first-ammendment rights for firing you because they found your cursing a violation of company policy and offensive? Or do you think that it's protected speech?

No they are not violating your first-amendment rights. Who is speech to be protected from? The people or the government?

Ok. What, in your opinion, would be an example of government promoting religion? You've never offered up a definition of your own.

I think that judges shouldn't force anyone to sit and listen to how their religion is wrong and how they should go to one particular religion. At the same time the judge should be free to acknowledge what his religion is. For example, if he needed to pray 5 times a day, he shouldn't have to hide this from anyone. You have already implied that you don't know what I am talking about when I mentioned the difference in acknowledging someone's religion and forcing it on someone else, so I am going to just leave it alone.

And no, a judge on the bench is not and should ne be free to say whatever he wants. He has a role and a job and his speech and actions should be in furtherance of that role. There's actually quite a bit of protocol in a courtroom.

He should be professional, but he shouldn't compromise his beliefs for a job. That is all that I am saying.

Sure. The former is possible and the latter is impossible (unless you have some mind-control powers I am unaware of).

So I take it, you don't know what I am getting at.

You are wrong.

That you made that comment or that it had anything to do with that topic?

"Anyway what the first amendment says is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. " - you post #6

And that was me asking where the constitution explicitly created a separation?

[tlj009]

For you to disagree with me saying that, I would have had to say that. I didn't say that. You are propping up a straw-man.

Actually I said that I disagree with Jfahler03, but If either of you don't believe that then just tell me. I could have gotten a wrong idea from your posts, but the way I understood you position was that the valedictorian represented the government in what she said.

No one on this thread has ever said otherwise.

I know how you like to pick apart each sentence, but there was an overall point to the paragraph that could be responded to without doing that.

Exactly what is the difference? What is the bright-line test?

That said, your claim "she just thanked God" is, according to your sources, untrue.

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5042317

"But because it did have numerous references to God and Jesus Christ"
"God's love is so great."

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5148027

The valedictorian's microphone was cut off when she began using Bible verses, making references to God, and the influence he had on her life.

She was doing a boat-load more than thanking God. Please use honest support.

I'd imagine they would have cut her mike for using profanity as well, or even just saying "this school sucks". More free-speech violation?

You are right. I need to do more research for my examples, but this is not my job and I don't have time to do the research as I should.
You actually did have a good question though. What is the bright-line test? I don't really have a good answer. I tried to discuss the difference in acknowledging someone’s religion and forcing it on someone else, but you didn't really know what I was talking about. I don't explain it well, but then I have gone about as far as I am going to go on this subject.

How, exactly, is not sermoning on religion anti-religious?

Is mentioning God a sermon? My point was that prohibiting the mention of God is anti-religious. But I think that you already know that.

I notice that McDonalds has no religious icons up at me local resturaunt. Does that mean that McDonands is both athiest and anti-religious? Or does that mean it's neutral.

Do they explicitly prohibit the mention of God?

I would oppose the government saying "there is no God". I would oppose the validictorian saying the same thing, on the exact same grounds that I oppose promotion of a religion. You are just hacking at a straw-man again.

Do you think that the government should explicitly prohibit the mention of God?

[JerryLove]

I said that I believe that the government should be silent on religion.

But I'm asking you what that means. What would the difference between "silent on religion" and "endorsement of religion" be to you? You've not answered that question.

I think that they should award the valedictorian position to the most qualified person and allow her to right her speech without censoring religion out of it. I don't think that the valedictorian is representing the government positions on anything but is just representing herself. Take a guy giving a speech for Coke. If he says that he loves Pepsi a lot more than Coke, is it illegal? It is probably a bad career move but I don't think that it is illegal.

No, it's not illegal. Was the girl mentioning God in her valedictorian speech illegal? Did she get arrested?

No? OK, we all agree that it shouldn't be criminal and it's not criminal. So how about you stop hacking at that strawman?

Coke can fire him. Coke can cut of his mike. The school can cut off her mike. We have consistancy.

Well, I do. You seem to have "coke can cut his mike for saying stuff coke doesn't want to say, but the school cant for saying stuff the school doesn't want to say". Why the hypocritical position?

Then who came up with the profanities example? It does make you less of an asset to the company. You may still be a good engineer, but if you lose clients or disrupt other employee's work, then you won't have a job.

What, because I offended other people? I thought you said censuring speech because it was offencive to some was a violation of the first ammendment.

Why can't I go around work spouting profanities? Why isn't that protected by the same law you think lets a girl with a school-owned mike at a school-sponsored event evangelize?

No they are not violating your first-amendment rights. Who is speech to be protected from? The people or the government?

Who is "the government"? You've been saying for some time that the judges and schools are not "the government". Please make up your mind.

I think that judges shouldn't force anyone to sit and listen to how their religion is wrong and how they should go to one particular religion. At the same time the judge should be free to acknowledge what his religion is.

How is a judge telling you the Satanism (his religion) is right not, in the same breath, telling you that yours is wrong?

How is "silent on religion" = "ok to endorse but not refute"? That's not "silent".

For example, if he needed to pray 5 times a day, he shouldn't have to hide this from anyone.

Who has argued otherwise? Who has siad that people should be forced to hide their religion? Why do you continue to hack at starwmen.

He should be professional, but he shouldn't compromise his beliefs for a job. That is all that I am saying.

What belief is compromised by not putting a stone idol of the ten commandments in the court?

That you made that comment or that it had anything to do with that topic?

You are wrong in your assetion that I started the topic of who did or should make law.

And that was me asking where the constitution explicitly created a separation?

So then, contrary to what you said, it hadn't been dropped in post 2.

I could have gotten a wrong idea from your posts, but the way I understood you position was that the valedictorian represented the government in what she said.

As long as she was on the school mike at the school event, she represents the government the same as bob the salseman represents IBM or that guy on Coke's stage at coke's event represents coke.

I know how you like to pick apart each sentence, but there was an overall point to the paragraph that could be responded to without doing that.

There's a point in mine. You keep hacking at straw men and using fallacious examples.

You actually did have a good question though. What is the bright-line test? I don't really have a good answer. I tried to discuss the difference in acknowledging someone’s religion and forcing it on someone else, but you didn't really know what I was talking about. I don't explain it well, but then I have gone about as far as I am going to go on this subject.

And let me be clear: I think governmental agents should not be forced to conceal their religion. That would be a violation of seperation.

Do they explicitly prohibit the mention of God?

On their literature? I'll bet they do. Are they anti-religious?

Do you think that the government should explicitly prohibit the mention of God?

Depends on context. I think, for example, it should be prohibited from appearing in government literature except as an acknowledgement of beliefs (it should not have been added to the pledge nor to the money). I think tha the members of congress are welcome to go to a bennidiction, but not as a governmental ceremony. I think that kids should be allowed to form prayer groups at schools, but not lead prayers over the intercom.

etc.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Why can't the government remain silent on things to do with religion?

They should. The idea of separating church and state is for the government to stay quiet and let people practice their religion as they wish without advocating one religion or another. Does the government ban prayer in schools? No. Students are free to practise their religion in school as they wish, however; they are not free to have it endorsed by the school because that would be equal to the government endorsing religion. Can government employees display Scripture verses on their desks? Yes. I work for the government, and I can display a Scripture verse on my desk without worrying about going to prison or losing my job. I've had religious discussions and Bible studies with people at work, I've read my Bible at work and I've prayed at work all without facing any disciplinary or administrative action. And that's how it should be. Provided that the practise of my religion doesn't interfere with how I do my job, and doesn't involve anything criminal, I'm free to do whatever I want. So far, I don't see how the separation of Church and state is going too far. If anything, it's not going far enough, because the US has a President who uses his office to promote his personal religious beliefs. To a lesser extent, the situation is very similar in Canada, but less pronounced, due the the Tories' minorty government status and precarious position with the Canadian public. When the government sponsors religions, it's no longer called freedom of religion, it's called state-sponsored religion, and that's a concept that I find absolutely repugnant.

[everyman]

You might be interested in this U.S. District Court decision -- Americans United for Separation of Church and State Vs Prison Fellowship Ministries -- that encompasses a number of church and state issues.

http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Inn....pdf?docID=163

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by everyman

You might be interested in this U.S. District Court decision -- Americans United for Separation of Church and State Vs Prison Fellowship Ministries -- that encompasses a number of church and state issues.

http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Inn....pdf?docID=163

That's an interesting concept which I think is often ignored - possibly simply because it relates to prisons (as opposed to schools for example).

In this case I would personally have a huge problem with the state funding the ministry, however I personally would believe it to be out of the state's control if the ministry wanted to act on its own terms and further in the state's interest.

I wonder how the ministry would react to the large amount of Muslim missions that are going on in prisons?

[everyman]

Ah, so you read the decision. Excellent.

Personally, I can't say I'm terribly upset by what the Prison Fellowship Ministries is doing, but if it were a Muslim or a Mormon or a Moonie ministry I would strongly object to them receiving state funds. So to be fair, I'd have to say that I see some merit in the judge's decision. By the way, this is Chuck Colson's ministry.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by everyman

but if it were a Muslim or a Mormon or a Moonie ministry I would strongly object to them receiving state funds.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Now you've got the government judging the merits of one religious group over another. Ooops.

It's better that it doesn't happen at all. Again, I have no problem with it and (again) I believe it's to the point of being in the interest of the government (e.g. less funds being used to rehabilitate prisoners, keeping prisoners "in line", and lower retention [e.g. parole for being good] and return rates).

[cytorath]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Who paid for the mike? Who paid for the loudspeakers? Who owned the ground? Who sponsored the event? That's right: It was the school. What group is the school part of? The government.

Actually when it comes down to it, here in Pennsylvania, the school system is funded with tax dollars collected from the people (another topic altogether). So when it comes down to it, it was paid for by the people living in the community where the school is. If said community has people living in it that are all of one religion, then I don't see where any of this would be a problem. But, if said community has residents of more than one religion, then I agree that the school system should restrict their views on any given religion. If however a student gives a speech to a graduating class and mentions God or Jesus or Allah or anything else religious, then the school system should not cut off the speech.

In today's society, it is almost impossible to not offend somebody with something. I work for the state and we must be careful about what we say at work because if you are having a conversation with someone and somebody else overhears it and finds it offensive, they can file a complaint against you and at the low end of the scale, you get a day's suspension, at the high end, you lose your job. This is taking things too far. First of all, if you don't like what you are hearing, you can always get up and leave, or ask that they not talk about that subject around you. Granted some of the subjects can get a little off hand, but in the interest of catering to the apparent soft minded, they have essentially taken away everyone else's rights of speech. (Most of these conversations I am speaking of take place on break or lunch while employees are off duty by the way and rarely take place in the work enviroment.) I have much more to say, but alas, I must get ready for said job. Peace.

[JerryLove]

Actually when it comes down to it, here in Pennsylvania, the school system is funded with tax dollars collected from the people (another topic altogether).

So when I buy stuff, since I got paid by IBM, it's actually IBM's money? No wait, IBM got the money from someone else, so it's there money. No wait, they got it from someone else still.

We could follow this to it's logical conclusion: Who printed the money. That would be the government, but it's a rediculious red-herring.

If said community has people living in it that are all of one religion, then I don't see where any of this would be a problem. But, if said community has residents of more than one religion, then I agree that the school system should restrict their views on any given religion.

And to the person that doesn't want to announce that they are the only Prodistant in the Catholic region?

In today's society, it is almost impossible to not offend somebody with something. I work for the state and we must be careful about what we say at work because if you are having a conversation with someone and somebody else overhears it and finds it offensive, they can file a complaint against you and at the low end of the scale, you get a day's suspension, at the high end, you lose your job.

I think some offecnces should be valid and others should not. The law generally goes too far here.

But you are diverging from the topic.

Granted some of the subjects can get a little off hand, but in the interest of catering to the apparent soft minded, they have essentially taken away everyone else's rights of speech.

No they have not. I'm not sure where you got your rather distorted view of what free-speech entails, but until your work starts censuring your editorial to your local newspaper, your right to free speech is well and protected.

Why are you (apparently) ampaigning to remove their right to control their own property and what occurs there?

[PatchworkMan]

Originally Posted by everyman

Personally, I can't say I'm terribly upset by what the Prison Fellowship Ministries is doing, but if it were a Muslim or a Mormon or a Moonie ministry I would strongly object to them receiving state funds. So to be fair, I'd have to say that I see some merit in the judge's decision.

Originally Posted by jfahler03

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Now you've got the government judging the merits of one religious group over another. Ooops.

Bingo. When God moves in, taxpayer money needs to move out. Period.