[jfahler03]

I'm going to start up a new thread that should inspire, provoke, and drive plenty of people insane. We have an issue that affects most - if not all - of us on CGR regarding the place of religion in civil government.

The basic question: where do you come from regarding the issue of religion and government being intertangled and to what extent do you think it should be carried out (that is the involvement of religion in government)? Do you take Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists as your foundation or the proclamations of people like David Barton of Wallbuilders?

An interesting concept relates the fact that Americans have in fact been dealing with this in many ways, shapes, and forms since the foundation of the nation. Perhaps because we are such a religious nation (see Democracy in America by Alexis de Toqueville on this) and our foundation has revolved around a sometimes post-milennial (see Winthrop Hudson and John Corrigan Religion in America) and pre-milennial outlook we have tried to take America, purify it, and call it a "City Upon a Hill".

To many people, issues such as the Roy Moore/Ten Commandments in the courtroom issue and prayer in schools define this controversy the most. Going back to that ealier mentioned concept of American religious history and getting more specific however, we find interesting controversies throughout history. Take for example the Sabbatarian movement which developed and grew in Rochester, New York in the 1830's and 1840's. Convinced that society must not operate on the Sabbath, conservative Evangelicals declared that the government should not operate the US Mail on Sundays. They also went into the commercial arena by stating that steam boats should not operate on Sundays on the Erie canal, and when legislation failed they started their own company, the Pioneer Line.

(For the above, see Paul E. Johnson A Shopkeeper's Millenium)

So what do you think? The controversies are as old as the nation.

One more thing: the Pioneer Line sounded drastically familiar to modern Christians' own tendency to "Christianize" certain parts of society. Look at Christian music, Christian-related stores, TV, radio, etc. etc. It's just nothing new.

A lot of the inspiration for this thread came from reading the above mentioned Johnson book as well as my work regarding antebellum religion in Lorain County, Ohio.

[tlj009]

"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."

I don't know who came up with total seperation of Church and State, but I do think that it is being carried too far. If we prohibit prayer in schools or prohibit a government employee from displaying a scripture verse on his desk, are we not prohibiting the free exercise of their religion? If we required prayer in school then I may could see where there would be a problem, but I don't see that as the case. Why can't the government remain silent on things to do with religion? I think that the responsiblity of the government is to walk the middle ground neither requiring or prohibiting things concerning religion. At least as long as other laws aren't being broken.

[JerryLove]

I don't know who came up with total seperation of Church and State, but I do think that it is being carried too far.

Some of the founding fathers... most notably Jefferson.

If we prohibit prayer in schools

We don't.

or prohibit a government employee from displaying a scripture verse on his desk

In general we don't.

are we not prohibiting the free exercise of their religion?

In the former case: yes, in the latter case: "maybe".

If we required prayer in school then I may could see where there would be a problem, but I don't see that as the case.

Your examples are not true either.

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

It should... that's what a seperation of church and state is about.

[tlj009]

Some of the founding fathers... most notably Jefferson.

Show me where they advocated not having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, not allowing employees to post scripture in their office, prohibiting students from praying. And if they did then they contridicted theirself with the first amendment.

We don't.

It was just a few weeks ago when a girl giving her speech at graduation had her microphone cut off for mentioning Jesus. Although it may not be a law, as yet, it is being enforced because school systems don't know the law and are afraid of a lawsuit. They are afraid of a lawsuit because the courts are not consistent on their rulings with regards to this.

In general we don't.

You here cases everyday. If it isn't the Ten Commandments in a judges courtroom, then it is the Ten Commandments in a mayor's office or a scripture verse in a government office.

In the former case: yes, in the latter case: "maybe".

Maybe?

Your examples are not true either.

See above

It should... that's what a seperation of church and state is about.

That is what I use to think. Now it seems to mean that if you work for the government then you can't publically have a religion. That is what I think is wrong. The government shouldn't make any laws regarding a religion but the individual person should be able to proclaim their position.

[JerryLove]

Show me where they advocated not having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, not allowing employees to post scripture in their office, prohibiting students from praying. And if they did then they contridicted theirself with the first amendment.

(1) Any number of places, most obviously Jefferson in his "wall of seperation" comment, (2) Depends on the deatils involved, and (3) They didn't and we don't (at least not on the grounds of it being prayer).

Why do you keep arguing fictitious examples?

It was just a few weeks ago when a girl giving her speech at graduation had her microphone cut off for mentioning Jesus. Although it may not be a law, as yet, it is being enforced because school systems don't know the law and are afraid of a lawsuit. They are afraid of a lawsuit because the courts are not consistent on their rulings with regards to this.

My sister's graduation last year began with a benidiction.

Tell you what, before I respond to your claim, why don't you cite a source so we can make sure we are discussing a real event with actual facts related to it. So far your claims have varied from dubious to downright misleading.

You here cases everyday. If it isn't the Ten Commandments in a judges courtroom, then it is the Ten Commandments in a mayor's office or a scripture verse in a government office.

Notice your own language "Judge" and "Mayor". You didn't identify people, you identified government posts.

It's not a "Judge's courtroom", it's the governments courtroom that a person works in at the government position of Judge. The "governemnt" exists soely as its representitives; to allow a judge, in his capacity as judge, to put up an endorsement of a religion is, in fact, a governmental endorsement of religion and a violation of your precept that the government should stay out of religion.

Of course, to discuss your mayoral reference, I would need an actual cite.

Maybe?

Yes. "Maybe".

That is what I use to think. Now it seems to mean that if you work for the government then you can't publically have a religion. That is what I think is wrong. The government shouldn't make any laws regarding a religion but the individual person should be able to proclaim their position.

So you are not sure what religion George Bush is?

There is no proscription against any person expressing any religious belief as a citizen. There is a proscription against government sponsorship of religion. As such, it is inappropriate and disallowed for a governmental representative to make or endorse a religious position in the performance of their duty.

A teacher in the teacher's lobby talking religion is fine, a teacher in the classroom having the same discussion is not. A Judge doing an intervierw where he expresses his believe in Judaism is fine, a posting by that same judge in a public courtroom expousing the truth of Judaism is not.

The test is pretty clear and pretty consistant.

[tlj009]

My sister's graduation last year began with a benidiction.

Tell you what, before I respond to your claim, why don't you cite a source so we can make sure we are discussing a real event with actual facts related to it. So far your claims have varied from dubious to downright misleading.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=44494
This one has a girl who had to sue to allow her speech at graduation.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=45807
This is about lawsuits against a school board for prayer.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43677
This is about a prayer at a football game.

http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4928301
This is where a judge would not allow prayer at a graduation.

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5042317
Here is the one I was talking about that the girl had her microphone cut off.

Notice your own language "Judge" and "Mayor". You didn't identify people, you identified government posts.

It's not a "Judge's courtroom", it's the governments courtroom that a person works in at the government position of Judge. The "governemnt" exists soely as its representitives; to allow a judge, in his capacity as judge, to put up an endorsement of a religion is, in fact, a governmental endorsement of religion and a violation of your precept that the government should stay out of religion.

Of course, to discuss your mayoral reference, I would need an actual cite.

So you are not sure what religion George Bush is?

There is no proscription against any person expressing any religious belief as a citizen. There is a proscription against government sponsorship of religion. As such, it is inappropriate and disallowed for a governmental representative to make or endorse a religious position in the performance of their duty.

A teacher in the teacher's lobby talking religion is fine, a teacher in the classroom having the same discussion is not. A Judge doing an intervierw where he expresses his believe in Judaism is fine, a posting by that same judge in a public courtroom expousing the truth of Judaism is not.

The test is pretty clear and pretty consistant.

What you are basically saying is that from 9 to 5 while you are working, you shouldn't have a religion. That is limiting freedom to practice religion. A posting stating a judge’s or anyone else’s beliefs should not be against the law as long as they don't try to force that belief on someone else. Would a judge wearing a cross be against the law? When is a mayor "on duty" or "off duty"? A mayor gives speeches constantly; can he say what he believes in any of these speeches? How is a posting of their belief endorsing a religion in performance of their duty? Can someone give an opinion in performance of their duty?

Teachers have an additional responsibility to teach facts and not opinions or beliefs. That being said, it is not the school system's responsibility to protect the kids from other people’s beliefs. It is the parent's responsibility.

There are many government positions with people in them from all religions. A person should feel free with expressing their position at any time in their life. If a person is scared of being fired for their religion, then it is religious persecution. If a person lets their religion interfere with their job, then they should be reprimanded for lack of performance. They should not be reprimanded because someone may get offended though.

Anyway what the first amendment says is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. A judge’s, mayors, anybody’s opinion or belief is not a law.

[JerryLove]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=44494
She made the speech and said advocated Jesus in it. This would seem to disprove your claim that she couldn't (she did).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=45807
There has been no ruling outlawing school prayer, just someone complaining about it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43677
He said the prayer and there is no mention of judicial censure.

http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4928301
Finally you have something that at least happened.

So let's see what it is. The school (a government agency) wanted to broadcast a prayer to all students. Tell me how the state performing a religious cerimony is a seperation of church and state.

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5042317
Another example of the above. The state chose not to allow religion as part of their own presentation. Again, how would the state sponsorship of religious cerimony be a seperation of church and state?

I'm curious how you would feel if the Validictorian had credited Vishnu with her success and the prayer had been to Satan.

What you are basically saying is that from 9 to 5 while you are working, you shouldn't have a religion. That is limiting freedom to practice religion.

Show me the religious requirement to put the ten commandments in a courtroom and we can talk.

I go running across my workfloor shouting profanities. They fire me. Did they just deny me free speech?

I get hired by coke to do presentations at their seminars. I say 'coke sucks' at the coke conventions. They fire me. Did they just deny me free speech?

Your are being rediculious.

A posting stating a judge’s or anyone else’s beliefs should not be against the law as long as they don't try to force that belief on someone else.

It depends on where that posting is and under what auspices. A judge *is* the government, and you've said you wanted the government seperate from religion.

Would you equally support the Satanic Verses in the courtroom?

Would a judge wearing a cross be against the law? When is a mayor "on duty" or "off duty"? A mayor gives speeches constantly; can he say what he believes in any of these speeches? How is a posting of their belief endorsing a religion in performance of their duty? Can someone give an opinion in performance of their duty?

What is "the government"? If the government can't endorse religion, but no governmental agent is ever under any circumstance the government, then what does such a proscription actually mean?

Here's an easy one for you. Imagine we were in support of the government sponsoring religion... not forcing everyone to be a member of religion, but simply a sponsor. What would be different, to you, between that and a government that didn't sponsor religion?

There are many government positions with people in them from all religions. A person should feel free with expressing their position at any time in their life. If a person is scared of being fired for their religion, then it is religious persecution. If a person lets their religion interfere with their job, then they should be reprimanded for lack of performance. They should not be reprimanded because someone may get offended though.

Go run through your jobsite screaming profanities. Tell me how that works out for you.

Anyway what the first amendment says is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. A judge’s, mayors, anybody’s opinion or belief is not a law.

Where's the ammendment that says that minors can't drink? Where's the ammendment that says that child porn is bad? Where's the ammendment that says that we can hold enemy combatants prisoner? Where's the ammendment that says we can build roads?

You keep changing what it is you are arguing. You asked who said there was a seperation of church and state. I told you. You then argued that a seperation of church and state means that government agents can, in the performance of their duty, act as religious proponents and evangelicals. I hope the next cop that pulls you over makes you stand at attention while he speaks of the virtures of worshipping a golden calf. Now you are attempting to argue whether there is a constitutional mandate for the seperation of church and state.

To answer your newest question, there is. Do you know how I know there is? Because the Constitution actually says who gets to interprete what it says: and that body is the federal court system. The courts have ruled that the constitution prohibits governmental sponsorship of religion... therefore it does.

BTW, your judge was not fired for putting up the ten commandments. He was fired for defying an order to take them down.

[tlj009]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=44494
She made the speech and said advocated Jesus in it. This would seem to disprove your claim that she couldn't (she did).

Did I say she couldn't? I said she had to sue to do it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=45807
There has been no ruling outlawing school prayer, just someone complaining about it.

You are right. That is why I said: "Although it may not be a law, as yet, it is being enforced because school systems don't know the law and are afraid of a lawsuit."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43677
He said the prayer and there is no mention of judicial censure.

There is no mention in that article either way. But then so what, they still got them to not allow prayer at sporting events by filing a lawsuit.

http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4928301
Finally you have something that at least happened.

So let's see what it is. The school (a government agency) wanted to broadcast a prayer to all students. Tell me how the state performing a religious ceremony is a separation of church and state.

Are you saying that all of the other articles are a lie or that I misrepresented them somehow?

Is a prayer a religious ceremony or a speech? Is the school requiring everyone to pray? It seems that the school is merely pandering to the majority. In a Jewish town, would you be surprised to here a Jewish prayer? or In a Muslim town...? Why is this different than the football game example? Where is anyone else's rights affected here? It seems that the religious freedom of the majority was limited because it was an offense to one person.

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5042317
Another example of the above. The state chose not to allow religion as part of their own presentation. Again, how would the state sponsorship of religious cerimony be a seperation of church and state?

I'm curious how you would feel if the Validictorian had credited Vishnu with her success and the prayer had been to Satan.

The valedictorian was not even a representative of the school. No one would even think that she is stating anyone's opinion except her own. She was censored merely to avoid a lawsuit. The state wasn't sponsoring a religious ceremony in her speech, they were just allowing her to give a speech.

If she had credited Vishnu and the prayer had been to Satan, then we would not have even heard of it because it would have been a curiosity is all. Unless of course, she got unplugged.

Show me the religious requirement to put the ten commandments in a courtroom and we can talk.

I go running across my workfloor shouting profanities. They fire me. Did they just deny me free speech?

I get hired by coke to do presentations at their seminars. I say 'coke sucks' at the coke conventions. They fire me. Did they just deny me free speech?

Your are being rediculious.

And here I though you were being ridiculous. I would fire you for lack of performance not because of what you said but because of the results from what you said. Everything must be seen with respect to consequences. How does someone's beliefs affect their job unless they let it? Just because I have a scripture verse on my desk, am I a worse engineer, architect, judge, clerk, etc.?

It depends on where that posting is and under what auspices. A judge *is* the government, and you've said you wanted the government separate from religion.

Would you equally support the Satanic Verses in the courtroom?

I see that you do agree that things are exactly clear cut. Of course if the judge *is* the government, then you are saying that he has no religious rights. Like I said, separation of Church and State is being carried too far.

The judge can do what he wants in his courtroom as long as he doesn't force it on someone else. Just like my office is MY office. This is my political view and it doesn't change because someone is satanic.

Go run through your jobsite screaming profanities. Tell me how that works out for you.

Apparently you either didn't read or didn't understand what I said about lack of performance. If you can't do your job because of religion then fine you should leave. That being said how does your belief affect your job performance?

Where's the ammendment that says that minors can't drink? Where's the ammendment that says that child porn is bad? Where's the ammendment that says that we can hold enemy combatants prisoner? Where's the ammendment that says we can build roads?

A constitutional amendment is not the only law. These are all laws either state or federal that were passed. I am not sure about the enemy combatants but it is probably in there too. I don't see where this falls in this discussion though.

You keep changing what it is you are arguing. You asked who said there was a seperation of church and state. I told you. You then argued that a seperation of church and state means that government agents can, in the performance of their duty, act as religious proponents and evangelicals.

Not exactly what happened. I did make the comment about not knowing where seperation of church and state came from and then went on to say that it has been taken too far all in the same post. I think I am being pretty consistent with what I am arguing. I said that they shouldn't be restricted from being able to admit to their beliefs not that their beliefs should affect or be a part of their duties. I see a difference with a person having a scripture on their desk and a person hounding someone to be "saved". If you can't see the difference then I'm sorry.

To answer your newest question, there is. Do you know how I know there is? Because the Constitution actually says who gets to interpret what it says: and that body is the federal court system. The courts have ruled that the constitution prohibits governmental sponsorship of religion... therefore it does.

So at least you agree that the courts job is to interpret and not to make the laws of the land. It doesn't seem to be stopping them though. What was my "newest question"?

BTW, your judge was not fired for putting up the Ten Commandments. He was fired for defying an order to take them down.

BTW, not my judge.

[JerryLove]

Did I say she couldn't? I said she had to sue to do it.

You are right. That is why I said: "Although it may not be a law, as yet, it is being enforced because school systems don't know the law and are afraid of a lawsuit."

There is no mention in that article either way. But then so what, they still got them to not allow prayer at sporting events by filing a lawsuit.

So we agree that in all three of these cases, the law supported the individual promoting God, meaning that your statement that the government is not allowing that is falsified by your own examples.

Is a prayer a religious ceremony or a speech? Is the school requiring everyone to pray? It seems that the school is merely pandering to the majority. In a Jewish town, would you be surprised to here a Jewish prayer? or In a Muslim town...? Why is this different than the football game example? Where is anyone else's rights affected here? It seems that the religious freedom of the majority was limited because it was an offense to one person.

You are assuming your conclusion (that someone not being allowed to use a government platform to perform a religious cerimony is a violation of their rights). You cannot successfuly argue something by assuming it, rather you must support your presupposition.

If my company puts on an event, doesn't it get to determine what the speakers will say if it so chooses?

In this case, the government sponsored an event... they sponsored a speech. To allow that speech to be religious would be sponsoring a religious speech and therefore an endorsement of religion. This would be a mixing, not a seperation, of church and government.

The valedictorian was not even a representative of the school. No one would even think that she is stating anyone's opinion except her own. She was censored merely to avoid a lawsuit. The state wasn't sponsoring a religious ceremony in her speech, they were just allowing her to give a speech.

No, they were sponsoring an even at which she was a speaker. It is a government event.

If the students throw their own event, they can say whatever they like. Similarly, if the nearby church would like to have a graduation cerimony, they can require the speeches there be religious in nature.

If she had credited Vishnu and the prayer had been to Satan, then we would not have even heard of it because it would have been a curiosity is all. Unless of course, she got unplugged.

That's not responsive. Would you support that the validictorian must be allowed to give credit to vishnu and recite a prayer to satan at your graduation cerimony if she so chose?

And here I though you were being ridiculous. I would fire you for lack of performance not because of what you said but because of the results from what you said. Everything must be seen with respect to consequences. How does someone's beliefs affect their job unless they let it? Just because I have a scripture verse on my desk, am I a worse engineer, architect, judge, clerk, etc.?

Did someone say it would or are you hacking at a strawman?

So you agree that there are limits on free-speech?

I see that you do agree that things are exactly clear cut. Of course if the judge *is* the government, then you are saying that he has no religious rights. Like I said, separation of Church and State is being carried too far.

*in his capacity as judge* he has no right to promote religion.

The judge can do what he wants in his courtroom as long as he doesn't force it on someone else. Just like my office is MY office. This is my political view and it doesn't change because someone is satanic.

So go running through your workplace shouting profanities. It isn't forced on someone else, and it doesn't impede your ability as an engineer.

Apparently you either didn't read or didn't understand what I said about lack of performance. If you can't do your job because of religion then fine you should leave. That being said how does your belief affect your job performance?

Not responsive. Screaming profanities at work will not effect your engineering skills either. Do you think you should be protected from being fired for it?

A constitutional amendment is not the only law. These are all laws either state or federal that were passed. I am not sure about the enemy combatants but it is probably in there too. I don't see where this falls in this discussion though.

Ok. So we can add that you don't know where laws are to your properties.

Are you attempting to say with a straight face that the CIA and Pentagon holding foreign nationals on federal and extra-territorial land is done under a state law?!?

Not exactly what happened. I did make the comment about not knowing where seperation of church and state came from and then went on to say that it has been taken too far all in the same post. I think I am being pretty consistent with what I am arguing. I said that they shouldn't be restricted from being able to admit to their beliefs not that their beliefs should affect or be a part of their duties. I see a difference with a person having a scripture on their desk and a person hounding someone to be "saved". If you can't see the difference then I'm sorry.

But no one has argued against having scripture on your desk. It's another straw-man. Your examples:

- Invoking a prayer as part of a government-sponsored event.
- Placing a monument to Jewesh religious beliefs in a public area of a courthouse.

You trying to move the focus to a hypothetical "scripture on my desk" is, again, changing your argument.

So at least you agree that the courts job is to interpret and not to make the laws of the land. It doesn't seem to be stopping them though.

Another excellent example. There's been no mention of who makes law, nor is the topic about that. You were asking about what the law said and that was addressed. You've responded with yet another off-topic comment.

What was my "newest question"?

Your asking where the constitution explicitly created a seperation.

[jfahler03]

Before I jump into the dialogue I'm going to answer what I feel here:

Originally Posted by tlj009

I think that the responsiblity of the government is to walk the middle ground neither requiring or prohibiting things concerning religion. At least as long as other laws aren't being broken.

I agree, however in all of the situations you describe the institutions represented are government institutions. Take the public school graduation for example. You might have a valedictorian giving her speech reflecting her thoughts and her beliefs. At the same time, the fact is that the valedictorian is giving a speech on school sanctioned time in a forum presented by the school to the public.

When you mentioned that schools are "not allowing this freedom" (a paraphrase...you get the idea) because they simply don't know the law I think you're also being mistaken. Schools have adjacent legal teams which research, understand, and advise the school whether or not something is appropriate. As a result of the fact that the school is not a vehicle of an ideology or religion, it must create a neutral atmosphere. This neutral atmosphere must be kept...whatever the cost.

[JerryLove]

That's a better put versoin of my point. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean "the ability to say anything, anywhere, under any circumstances without reprocussion".

Coke not letting you advocate pepsi with their equipment at their event, or a school not letting you evangelize with their equipment at their event, is not a violation of the freedom of speech.

Nor can you yell "fire" in a crowded room, nor threaten the president, nor shout profanities at work without reprocussion, and these reprocussions are not violations of the freedom of speech either.

You can, publiclly, and without any governmental reprocussion, advocate essentially any position you like, no matter how abohrrent, offensive, or dangerous to the government. *That* is the freedom of speech.

Forcing a governmental entity to help you, by providing a venue, or a mike, is not "Freedom", it's "coersion". Freedom of speech is also freedom from speech. The government cannot stop me from listening to you, but it cannot force me to listen to you either. In fact, where religious positions are concerned, it cannot even coerce me.

There are exceptions. A "religious day" at the school that gave equal support to anyone that wanted to present would not, in my opinion, constitute an endorsement of religion; nor do I (nor the government) believe that things like student-prayer-groups constitute a violation of seperation.

I have no problem with a judge being a pastor. I have not problem with one wearing a cross. I do have a problem with putting a cross on the courthouse door.

[tlj009]

So we agree that in all three of these cases, the law supported the individual promoting God, meaning that your statement that the government is not allowing that is falsified by your own examples.

Actually we don't have that the law supported the individual promoting God. Take the one about the football game for example, he did it, the school board got sued, the school board agreed not to have prayer ever again at a sporting event. That is my point. It may not be law yet, but with every lawsuit it is getting closer.

You are assuming your conclusion (that someone not being allowed to use a government platform to perform a religious cerimony is a violation of their rights). You cannot successfuly argue something by assuming it, rather you must support your presupposition.

If my company puts on an event, doesn't it get to determine what the speakers will say if it so chooses?

In this case, the government sponsored an event... they sponsored a speech. To allow that speech to be religious would be sponsoring a religious speech and therefore an endorsement of religion. This would be a mixing, not a seperation, of church and government.

They awarded a student with the opportunity to write their own speech and present it. If she wants to thank God in her speech, how is that promoting her religion? That is merely stating what she believes. If the schools prohibit all mention of religion, are they not promoting atheism? Which is basically just another religion.

No, they were sponsoring an even at which she was a speaker. It is a government event.

If the students throw their own event, they can say whatever they like. Similarly, if the nearby church would like to have a graduation cerimony, they can require the speeches there be religious in nature.

So you are saying that the valedictorian is a representative of the school board. I think they should insist on being paid then.

That's not responsive. Would you support that the validictorian must be allowed to give credit to vishnu and recite a prayer to satan at your graduation cerimony if she so chose?

I think that all people should be proud of their beliefs and should be able to say what they believe. If she wanted to do that then fine, whatever floats her boat.

Did someone say it would or are you hacking at a strawman?

So you agree that there are limits on free-speech?

I agree that when you cease to be an asset to the company, then you should lose your job. That was the response to your profanity example.

*in his capacity as judge* he has no right to promote religion.

Of course we may just disagree about the word promote. Is stating his personal beliefs promoting his religion? Should he not be free to state what he believes? Should he hide his beliefs so that no one can find out what they are?

But no one has argued against having scripture on your desk. It's another straw-man. Your examples:

- Invoking a prayer as part of a government-sponsored event.
- Placing a monument to Jewesh religious beliefs in a public area of a courthouse.

You trying to move the focus to a hypothetical "scripture on my desk" is, again, changing your argument.

So tell me what you think about the "scripture on my desk". And then address my actual point of the statement. Do you see a difference in a person acknowledging what they believe and a person forcing their beliefs on someone else?

Another excellent example. There's been no mention of who makes law, nor is the topic about that. You were asking about what the law said and that was addressed. You've responded with yet another off-topic comment.

I believe you brought up this topic with the following comment.

To answer your newest question, there is. Do you know how I know there is? Because the Constitution actually says who gets to interprete what it says: and that body is the federal court system. The courts have ruled that the constitution prohibits governmental sponsorship of religion... therefore it does.

Now you are just trying to limit how I respond to it. But yes it is off the topic so there is no use going there.

Your asking where the constitution explicitly created a seperation.

Actually I thought we had dropped that back in about my second post. Besides that is not really the issue here. The question was not what does the law say about separation of church and state? The question was

where do you come from regarding the issue of religion and government being intertangled and to what extent do you think it should be carried out (that is the involvement of religion in government)?

And that is where I come from. So if you don't agree, then fine. If you want to argue about it, fine. But my argument isn't about what the law says; my argument is about my opinion on the way it should be.

[tlj009]

I agree, however in all of the situations you describe the institutions represented are government institutions. Take the public school graduation for example. You might have a valedictorian giving her speech reflecting her thoughts and her beliefs. At the same time, the fact is that the valedictorian is giving a speech on school sanctioned time in a forum presented by the school to the public.

I guess I just disagree that a girl thanking God in a speech is in any way saying that the school board is in 100% support of this girls religion and no one else’s. The school board doesn't and shouldn't award the position of valedictorian according to religious preference. If she gave a sermon or made it a purely religious speech then maybe you have a point, but she didn't. She just thanked God.

I think that the issue of prayer would be closer to your point then the speech.

When you mentioned that schools are "not allowing this freedom" (a paraphrase...you get the idea) because they simply don't know the law I think you're also being mistaken. Schools have adjacent legal teams which research, understand, and advise the school whether or not something is appropriate.

Actually they don't. I work closely with towns, villages, police jury's, etc. They usually have one town lawyer and their advice on this topic would almost always be this: It may or may not be against the law, but it will open you to a lawsuit so don't allow it. People don't fight for "truth, justice, and the American way". They usually take the path of least resistance.

As a result of the fact that the school is not a vehicle of an ideology or religion, it must create a neutral atmosphere. This neutral atmosphere must be kept...whatever the cost.

Sure they should merely represent the people like all government agencies should do. But that leaves us with, what exactly is a neutral atmosphere? Is not allowing a valedictorian to thank God being neutral or being promoting an anti-religious doctrine such as atheism?

[JerryLove]

They awarded a student with the opportunity to write their own speech and present it. If she wants to thank God in her speech, how is that promoting her religion? That is merely stating what she believes. If the schools prohibit all mention of religion, are they not promoting atheism? Which is basically just another religion.

This basic example repeats, so I'll address it in this instance rather than all of them.

Who couldn't have spoken?

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?

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.

As a speaker at the event, her speech was part of this governmental event. The governmental event being used to promote religion is governmental sponsorship of religion... though I agree it's closer to the line than (say) the judge example.

I think that all people should be proud of their beliefs and should be able to say what they believe. If she wanted to do that then fine, whatever floats her boat.

I somehow doubt your sincereity here. Can I add "under satan" to the pledge?

I agree that when you cease to be an asset to the company, then you should lose your job. That was the response to your profanity example.

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

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?

Of course we may just disagree about the word promote. Is stating his personal beliefs promoting his religion? Should he not be free to state what he believes? Should he hide his beliefs so that no one can find out what they are?

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

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.

So tell me what you think about the "scripture on my desk". And then address my actual point of the statement. Do you see a difference in a person acknowledging what they believe and a person forcing their beliefs on someone else?

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

I believe you brought up this topic with the following comment.

You are wrong.

Actually I thought we had dropped that back in about my second post. Besides that is not really the issue here.

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

[JerryLove]

I guess I just disagree that a girl thanking God in a speech is in any way saying that the school board is in 100% support of this girls religion and no one else’s.

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.

The school board doesn't and shouldn't award the position of valedictorian according to religious preference.

No one on this thread has ever said otherwise.

If she gave a sermon or made it a purely religious speech then maybe you have a point, but she didn't. She just thanked God.

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?

Sure they should merely represent the people like all government agencies should do. But that leaves us with, what exactly is a neutral atmosphere? Is not allowing a valedictorian to thank God being neutral or being promoting an anti-religious doctrine such as atheism?

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

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.

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.