Warren Steel
2006-06-12 01:28:13 UTC
There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. Read a
basic history book. The only tiny grain of truth in your false
conception lies in this: the founders only wanted to be certain that no
single Christian denomination was allowed to dominate over other
Christian denominations.
There is clearly separation of church and state, most clearlybasic history book. The only tiny grain of truth in your false
conception lies in this: the founders only wanted to be certain that no
single Christian denomination was allowed to dominate over other
Christian denominations.
in the eternal prohibition of any religious test for public office,
Aricle 6, section 3:
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to
any office or public trust under the United States."
This prohibition deeply offended many Christians from Reformed
and Anglican backgrounds. It was, however, favored by freethinkers
and many evangelicals from Independent traditions, like Baptist
Elder John Leland, who had worked with Madison and Jefferson to
secure, against heavy opposition, a similar provision in the
Virginia constitution.
After a whole bunch of Christian bickering, the founders of America
decided to set every version of Christianity on an equal footing.
Why merely Christian? Jews had petitioned Pennsylvaniadecided to set every version of Christianity on an equal footing.
about exactly this, requiring that officeholders be Christian.
The Constitution loudly omitted any reference to Christianity.
Leland, again, said it didn't matter if you worshipped one
god or none, twenty or a hundred, as long as you didn't harm
your neighbor. "If a man worships one God, three Gods, twenty
Gods, or no God -- if he pays adoration one day in a week, seven
days or no day -- wherein does he injure the life, liberty or
property of another? Let any or all these actions be supposed
to be religious evils of an enormous size, yet they are not
crimes to be punished by laws of state, which extend no further,
in justice, than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor"
And as late as 1819 he remarked that "the number, the industry,
and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the
people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation
of the church from the State."
This is still true today in the U.S., where religion of
all kind is literally booming, not in spite of this separation,
but because of it. But where today are the Baptists like Leland,
with such a refreshing view? For the most part, totally
bamboozled by the temptations of Caesaropapism, ever since
Vice President George H.W. Bush (a member of a church that
had persecuted Baptists) visited the Southern Baptist Convention
and asked them to support Reagan's prayer amendment, despite
their long history of opposing such measures. Do they now
wish a Denmark or England ("established" church, lukewarm
religion), or perhaps a Taliban theocracy, where religious
crimes (including apostasy) are punishable by death?
The current state of affairs is a hideous nightmare that is, in every
detail, PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of what the founders intended. Instead
of religious freedom, we have religious censorship.
And this censorship is a brand new condition. Right up until 1963, my
mom recalls bible reading and prayer every single morning in public
schools.
I recall it too, at least at assemblies, where we haddetail, PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of what the founders intended. Instead
of religious freedom, we have religious censorship.
And this censorship is a brand new condition. Right up until 1963, my
mom recalls bible reading and prayer every single morning in public
schools.
the spectacle of Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists and
Episcopalians all mouthing their separate versions of the
Lord's Prayer while Jews and other non-Christians sat silent;
Blacks were not even in the school. Ah, yes, the good ole
days when we all agreed.... As a student, I petitoned to
stop this farce, but fortunately the U.S. Supreme Court
decided to stop it first, as they were bound to do by
the 14th amendment, adopted almost a century earlier.
The founders had absolutely no concept of censoring religion from the
public schools. We can thank the bigots over at the ACLU for the
current state of total censorship of any speech that happens to be
religious. Yes, apparently all forms of speech are to be totally free
from censorship...... unless that speech happens to be religious, in
which case it must be censored from public education with massive
bigotry and prejudice.
As a music historian in a state university, I mustpublic schools. We can thank the bigots over at the ACLU for the
current state of total censorship of any speech that happens to be
religious. Yes, apparently all forms of speech are to be totally free
from censorship...... unless that speech happens to be religious, in
which case it must be censored from public education with massive
bigotry and prejudice.
mention and teach about religion almost weekly, and I
direct performances of religious music. I am totally
obligated to address religion as it informs and inspires
music of many faiths in many cultures, and am hardly
censored for doing so. What I may not do in my capacity
as a teacher in a public university, is indoctrinate my
students or attempt to lead them in prayer. To do so
would be morally as well as legally wrong: since I
enjoy their respect, and since I have a certain power
over them, to proselytize my faith would be just as
evil as hitting on them for sexual favors--it would
be harrassment and abuse. Your "censorship" is merely
a straw dog to frighten the gullible.
This single fact, the ACLU instigated censorship of religion from
public education, accounts for a large part of our current societal
meltdown.
Things were so much better, when we had both prayerspublic education, accounts for a large part of our current societal
meltdown.
and lynchings, eh?