THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS

[Iz Man]

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
-Ben Franklin

[Backglass]

THAT is priceless. Already copied to the laptop for future use.

[unriggable]

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
-Ben Franklin

I hope that isn't your proof that the FFs wanted this country to be christian.

[Iz Man]

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
-Ben Franklin

I hope that isn't your proof that the FFs wanted this country to be christian.

Just a quote from Ben. Take from it what you wish.

[vtmarik]

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
-Ben Franklin

I hope that isn't your proof that the FFs wanted this country to be christian.

Just a quote from Ben. Take from it what you wish.

Ben was a pimp, end of story.

[unriggable]

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
-Ben Franklin

I hope that isn't your proof that the FFs wanted this country to be christian.

Just a quote from Ben. Take from it what you wish.

Ben was a pimp, end of story.

Oh, yes.

[Iz Man]

Well it does show us 2 things.

1) Ben Franklin believed in God.

2) He loved beer.


ergo.... he was a good man

[mr. incrediball]

my father is an athiest.

Oh wait, sorry, misinterpretation of the title...

[CrazyAnglican]

I love how he is still convinced that America is christian in another thread. Arrogance is bliss.

And on a further thread the outraged voice of the Christian right is complaining about militant atheists targeting poor Christians

An interesting post, and a humorous one vtmarik. Like always it’s funny without being insulting. There is an underlying supposition here though. I agree that The United States does not have a Christian government, and it was never meant to have one (I’ll take one more step out of Jay’s good graces I suppose). It is nevertheless largely a country of Christians. The Treaty of Tripoli basically stated that we weren’t a Christian government and had no particular bone to pick with Muslim countries on that issue. It is not proof positive that we are secular or in any way anti-Christian. Its statements are indicative of a country whose government is secular only in that it does not endorse one religious stance over another. Certainly the Bill of Rights (which is part of the U.S. Constitution) ratified by each state in proper form clearly states our government's stance upon religion and the rights of its citizens to practice it in any way they choose.

Amendment I
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. (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/fac ... illeng.htm)

A treaty is only an agreement with a foreign power. Anyone who plays Risk should know exactly what they are worth. This is seen in the Constitution because the President, with the Senate’s approval can make a treaty without the approval of the people or even their Representatives. An amendment to the Constitution takes 2/3 majority of both the Senate and House. We only have 27 amendments; how many treaties have we made?

U.S. Constitution Article 2 section 2 (concerning powers of the President)

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2)

In answer to the idea that I should hide my religion and that it should not be seen in public spaces, I do not have to. I am fully within my rights to come directly up to you and tell you that you should be a Christian in any place I see fit even in your own home (of course I wouldn't knowing your opinions, but Iwouldn't be breaking a single law of the U.S. government if I did). No law can be passed to prevent that it this country.

It is you who are violating the first amendment when you say that anyone should be silent about anything that does not endanger or otherwise harm or potentially harm you in a physical sense. The people of the United States, upon seeing the first draft of the Constitution, would not agree to it without freedom of speech and freedom of religion guarenteed to them...first. These were obviously vitally important to a significant number of the founding fathers.

You do not have the right under the U.S. Constitution to not be bothered by views that differ from yours. Quite the contrary, everyone has equal rights to state their beliefs and to support them in public. The founding fathers, admittedly not all of them were big on Christianity, were obviously more concerned with the possibility of a single minority (nobility, etc.) gaining too much power and turning the government away from representing the majority of the populace.

[got tonkaed]

i feel like people tend to pick and choose what they want out of the first amendments provisions for religion. There are two parts, the seperation aspect and the guarantee of religious freedom. The first is necessarily a policy issue in todays american social climate, whereas the second is much more of a liberties issue, and both need to be addressed.

The sum of the first section is that frankly a government must remain neutral when looking at policy or events that may promote anothe religion. The lemon test, the coercion test, and the endorsement test are how we determine if a government supported event or policy is going to far. To put it overly simplisticly, you cannot promote one way of thinking above others, which tends to be a necessary dilema in terms of the school systems, but that may be another thread (possibly the creation one). You really are on thin ground even when putting things in a favorable light, because first and foremost, the government must pander to religious neutrality, even in cases of prayers in public (non spontaenous prayers from groups) and nativity scenes.

However the liberties side must also be discussed. We also arent allowed to refuse benefits or give special entitlements to someone because of their religious preference. In the workplace an individual is allowed to be a homophobic bigot if they so choose, becuase we are required to follow the second half of the establishment clause. Likewise, you cant fire someone for praying or cause them harm because this is not respecting their religious belief.

It should be fairly clear to anyone who studies the establishment clause what it means for religion in society. If you are making a set policy or a set action with a group of people, its going to be challenged. Its just simple to do so, since there are very few acts which can stand up given the neutrality requirements of each of the previously mentioned tests. However, as individuals, or small groups doing spontaneous action, these should be allowed to proceed, but not necessarily encouraged. You cant prevent someone from living out their religious life, but you can discourage them from doing so in a way that involves an action or event that everyone is expected to follow. Its not very difficult to understand, but its a hot button issue for a lot of people, and understandbly so, because especialy from teh religious perspective, how do you draw the line?

[unriggable]

CrazyAngelican, the treaty is not as effective as the ammendment but it serves to show the Founding Fathers' intentions in what religion serves in the country.

[CrazyAnglican]

i feel like people tend to pick and choose what they want out of the first amendments provisions for religion. There are two parts, the seperation aspect and the guarantee of religious freedom. The first is necessarily a policy issue in todays american social climate, whereas the second is much more of a liberties issue, and both need to be addressed

Okay first, let’s distinguish what I’m saying from what I am not saying. I have no problem with the separation aspect of the first amendment. It’s there to keep me from being coerced, by the government, to accept any differing religious belief, even the idea that God does not exist. My argument is against the following types of statements which do reflect an idea that religion should be hidden from public view.

I honestly do not care if you pray at home and would never stop you from doing so. And I'm not sure what you are talking about in the second half but my opinion applies to ALL religions. Keep it at home and in the Mosque please and I'm happy.

One person who doesn't believe in your religion and I say bravo to them for standing up for whats right. How did this "ruin" anything? Could you not sit on the bench and pray alone to yourself? I just don't get the need for the big public display.

Keep it out of the public spaces I have to pay for, go home and go nuts. I honestly could care less if you pray all night long. Have a blast!

They’re all from Backglass for no better reason than he’ll probably come in with some wickedly, witty repartee to make things more lively and get folks to read the argument.

The sum of the first section is that frankly a government must remain neutral when looking at policy or events that may promote anothe religion. The lemon test, the coercion test, and the endorsement test are how we determine if a government supported event or policy is going to far. To put it overly simplisticly, you cannot promote one way of thinking above others, which tends to be a necessary dilema in terms of the school systems, but that may be another thread (possibly the creation one). You really are on thin ground even when putting things in a favorable light, because first and foremost, the government must pander to religious neutrality, even in cases of prayers in public (non spontaenous prayers from groups) and nativity scenes.

I agree totally with this statement, but have one question. One viewpoint about religion states flatly that religion is a waste of time and should be kept out of the public eye. Isn’t the government showing preference for that viewpoint by discouraging religion in public spaces and refusing to allow any religious relic or media in government areas?

However the liberties side must also be discussed. We also arent allowed to refuse benefits or give special entitlements to someone because of their religious preference. In the workplace an individual is allowed to be a homophobic bigot if they so choose, becuase we are required to follow the second half of the establishment clause. Likewise, you cant fire someone for praying or cause them harm because this is not respecting their religious belief.

Now this isn’t the case. In the private sector you can be fired for anything as long as the company is following its own established policies for firing an employee. If there are rules (and I hope there are) against harassing people due to their sexual preference, then you can be fired for that. If there are rules against public prayer, then you can be fired for that as well.

I’m sure that you were talking about public sector jobs in the United States, though. I am a public school teacher; if I began each class by praying aloud I would certainly be censured and eventually fired whether I encouraged anyone to pray with me or not. Teachers could also be fired for derogatory remarks toward homosexuals because this “does not promote the development of character” in their students.

I do, in my silence, teach kids that religion isn’t a fit topic for discussion in one of the first public institutions that they encounter in their lives. Whose perspective on religion am I supporting as an agent of the state?

It should be fairly clear to anyone who studies the establishment clause what it means for religion in society. If you are making a set policy or a set action with a group of people, its going to be challenged. Its just simple to do so, since there are very few acts which can stand up given the neutrality requirements of each of the previously mentioned tests. However, as individuals, or small groups doing spontaneous action, these should be allowed to proceed, but not necessarily encouraged. You cant prevent someone from living out their religious life, but you can discourage them from doing so in a way that involves an action or event that everyone is expected to follow. Its not very difficult to understand, but its a hot button issue for a lot of people, and understandbly so, because especialy from teh religious perspective, how do you draw the line?

Nothing is fairly clear when lawyers and politicians are involved. When one religious viewpoint is that religions should not be practiced in public, it becomes almost impossible for the government to keep a neutral stance. The only truly neutral stance is to allow everyone, no matter what their religious viewpoint may be, to practice that religion anywhere they choose without interference from the state. Being silent on the issue of religion is supporting those who say, "we should be silent about religion".

CrazyAngelican, the treaty is not as effective as the ammendment but it serves to show the Founding Fathers' intentions in what religion serves in the country.

I agree, but basically all that article of that treaty says is we are not a theocracy and a war with a Muslim nation will not be due to differing religious dogma.

[CoffeeCream]

Jay, just exactly what are you claiming? Are you saying that the members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention were Christians, the US government was founded on Christian principles, or that the culture of the US was Christian at the time of the founding?

[beezer]

James Madison wrote:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

You have taken this quote out of context. Madison was arguing against the government establishment of Christianity. The actual complete quote taken in context is from his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.

You can read the entire speech in context by clicking this link.

The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy Hysteria.

So what! McCarthy wasn't responsible for that motto being introduced. It was Senator Holland (a Democrat) that introduced the bill. The Senators referenced the history of how the phrase was used from the time of the Civil War, and also acknowledged the influence of the Star-Spangled Banner in promoting the phrase.

Both houses of Congress (controlled by Democrats) passed it. Dwight Eisenhower signed off on it (a Republican). It had bipartisan support. For the actual record that proves this please take a look for yourself.

Roe vs. Wade was ruled on in 1973. The same year that The Exorcist came out!

[Snorri1234]

I agree totally with this statement, but have one question. One viewpoint about religion states flatly that religion is a waste of time and should be kept out of the public eye. Isn’t the government showing preference for that viewpoint by discouraging religion in public spaces and refusing to allow any religious relic or media in government areas?

But that isn't the reason they keep it out of the public eye. Ofcourse you come to the same conclusion in that religion should be kept out of the public eye, but the way you get there is different and very important. It's kept out because that's the only way to not show preference to any religion. And believing religion is a waste of time isn't exactly a religion, just as science isn't a religion so the government can fund scientific projects.

However the liberties side must also be discussed. We also arent allowed to refuse benefits or give special entitlements to someone because of their religious preference. In the workplace an individual is allowed to be a homophobic bigot if they so choose, becuase we are required to follow the second half of the establishment clause. Likewise, you cant fire someone for praying or cause them harm because this is not respecting their religious belief.

Now this isn’t the case. In the private sector you can be fired for anything as long as the company is following its own established policies for firing an employee. If there are rules (and I hope there are) against harassing people due to their sexual preference, then you can be fired for that. If there are rules against public prayer, then you can be fired for that as well.

You misunderstood. In the workplace you can't actually be fired for being a homophobic bigot, you can only be fired for acting like one. So it means keeping your beliefs to yourself and not bothering anyone with it.

I’m sure that you were talking about public sector jobs in the United States, though. I am a public school teacher; if I began each class by praying aloud I would certainly be censured and eventually fired whether I encouraged anyone to pray with me or not. Teachers could also be fired for derogatory remarks toward homosexuals because this “does not promote the development of character” in their students.

I do, in my silence, teach kids that religion isn’t a fit topic for discussion in one of the first public institutions that they encounter in their lives. Whose perspective on religion am I supporting as an agent of the state?

Indeed. That's because you act openly in a "non-public" space. If you just believed homosexuals were evil and should be shot all the time, but do not say it in the class or go out shooting gays, then you cannot be fired.

[comic boy]

Surely it is all a matter of perspective. If an evangelical preacher comes to my door I consider it no different to a telephone salesman trying to sell me double glazing, they are both promoting something and I can choose to listen or not. If a bunch of kids want to say a prayer before a junior game in front of mostly parents and friends then whats the harm, different story if you have a televised game with an audience of millions
though. Would I care if my local mayor wore a crucifix discretely tucked inside his shirt, not one bit but if he started plastering religious icons all over civic buildings then I would certainly protest.
If everybody developed a little more common sense and practised a little more self restraint then a lot of problems would evaporate. Freedom of speech and action need to be tempered with consideration for others, they were not simply designed as a tool to promote ones bigotry.

[jay_a2j]

Jay, just exactly what are you claiming? Are you saying that the members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention were Christians, the US government was founded on Christian principles, or that the culture of the US was Christian at the time of the founding?

I'll let Susie explain, she states it so well.


"The Unites States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. This assertion is supported in references to the "Creator" and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration of Independence. Our entire political philosophy as set forth in the Declaration is dependent on these beliefs. This principle is further supported by a declaration by the US Supreme Court in 1892 in the now famous case of "The Church of the Holy Trinity v. US 143 US 457, "that this is a Christian nation" and gives numerous examples of supporting evidence to solidify this truth. Would you recommend that we remove such references from our most cherished documents to help support your non-American beliefs? The idea of a separation of church and state is a manufactured concept based on a speech given once by Thomas Jefferson.

Everyone follows a religion...it is our nature. If you aren't following God you are following something else, even if unwittingly, and I shudder to think what.

Our laws are based on rights of property endowed by God. What is commonly overlooked is that we have not only rights in property but also property in rights as James Madison pointed out. Typically when I hear someone such as yourself trumpeting such American "values," as the liberals like to put it, such as the exclusion of "religious affiliations," "racial intolerance," "homophobic concerns," or "catering to the wealthy," it is nearly always in violation of these basic God given rights of property. You may not like this, but people have the right not to like you and you do not have the right to impose yourself on them just because you disagree. I have the God given inalienable property in my right to decide for myself to what extent my religious beliefs are a part of my social life, whom I shall associate with be it all whites all blacks or whomever I please, and whether or not I support homosexuality. As for the wealthy I have shocking news for you; the rich have rights too! New concept I know. Here's a Christian truth for you...thou shall not steal! Here's another...thou shalt not covet! My friend, whether or not you break into my house yourself or elect someone to do it for you, it is still stealing if our basic property rights are not observed. The hallmark of socialism is the rejection in these rights of property. Where there is no property there is no freedom. Finally, to address your comment about providing for "what the masses need" I have more shocking news for you. Their lusts for largess are never satisfied. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The hallmark of socialism is the rejection in these rights of property. Where there is no property there is no freedom.

The United States was created in such a way as to protect the wealthy from the masses and "what they need," as much as it was created to protect the masses from the rich. In this respect ONLY is equality American. The founders rejected the notion of a Utopia, understood that only Christ could create a heaven on earth, and resolved at founding a society that protects us from such sentiments.

Have you reflected on the possibility that you are imposing YOUR religion on us? Have you reflected that you are attempting to change the United States from a Christian nation into a Humanist nation?"

[unriggable]

Jay...you're an idiot.

Creator is there because at the time, British law had the government say what human right were, and since it was worded that way the king had the right to take these rights away. So when the Americans came around, they wrote that human rights were not given to you by the government, they were simply given to you to begin with, using the Creator as the giver. If it was a christian nation, they would say god. But they didn't.

And no, not every one follows a religion. It's called human nature. It's what drives us. Call it a religion, and we are all worshippers.

Second to last paragraph - prove it.

Last paragraph - makes you a hypocrit. Who started this thread, Hmm?

[jay_a2j]

Jay...you're an idiot.

Creator is there because at the time, British law had the government say what human right were, and since it was worded that way the king had the right to take these rights away. So when the Americans came around, they wrote that human rights were not given to you by the government, they were simply given to you to begin with, using the Creator as the giver. If it was a christian nation, they would say god. But they didn't.

And no, not every one follows a religion. It's called human nature. It's what drives us. Call it a religion, and we are all worshippers.

Second to last paragraph - prove it.

Last paragraph - makes you a hypocrit. Who started this thread, Hmm?

Ummm that is NOT my quote. Maybe if you read the very first sentence.

[Snorri1234]

Ummm that is NOT my quote. Maybe if you read the very first sentence.

Well you said it explained what you thought. So why would unriggable be wrong in directing his post at you and ask you to explain yourself?

[joecoolfrog]

Well I would say it appears that Jay has no mind of his own, but it seems rather superfelous

[got tonkaed]

Okay first, let’s distinguish what I’m saying from what I am not saying. I have no problem with the separation aspect of the first amendment. It’s there to keep me from being coerced, by the government, to accept any differing religious belief, even the idea that God does not exist. My argument is against the following types of statements which do reflect an idea that religion should be hidden from public view.

id just like to quickly add i didnt necessarily mean you anglican, just many in general.

I honestly do not care if you pray at home and would never stop you from doing so. And I'm not sure what you are talking about in the second half but my opinion applies to ALL religions. Keep it at home and in the Mosque please and I'm happy.

I agree totally with this statement, but have one question. One viewpoint about religion states flatly that religion is a waste of time and should be kept out of the public eye. Isn’t the government showing preference for that viewpoint by discouraging religion in public spaces and refusing to allow any religious relic or media in government areas?

well i would argue that out of the two they believe showing neturality is better served by keeping images out. Since you can keep an image out without making necessarily a public stance that this religion is prefered (although it may be implied) it is a less visible stance than if something was to be prominently shown (as in many cases the ten commandments was) which would violate different tests under the establishment clause. I think it reflects the recent choice the legal system has made to follow their own guidelines.

Now this isn’t the case. In the private sector you can be fired for anything as long as the company is following its own established policies for firing an employee. If there are rules (and I hope there are) against harassing people due to their sexual preference, then you can be fired for that. If there are rules against public prayer, then you can be fired for that as well.

this is becoming less and less true. I am referring here to your last statement as increasingly, companies which have these policies are put under legal pressure for these laws. Any law which fires someone based on policies against religious practice violates the liberties part of the establishment clause, and could certainly be legally challenged.

I’m sure that you were talking about public sector jobs in the United States, though. I am a public school teacher; if I began each class by praying aloud I would certainly be censured and eventually fired whether I encouraged anyone to pray with me or not. Teachers could also be fired for derogatory remarks toward homosexuals because this “does not promote the development of character” in their students.

Again there seems to be a failure to identify differences between the first and second provisions. In your position in a public school, you are seen primarily as a vessel of the first provision and not of the second while you are working. Since in your class, if you give certain remarks, these remarks may violate the many different tests of the first provision. On legal grounds in the public position you are in, qualifies for different standards than the private position just mentioned, as it is likely he is not in position to advance or promote beliefs.

I do, in my silence, teach kids that religion isn’t a fit topic for discussion in one of the first public institutions that they encounter in their lives. Whose perspective on religion am I supporting as an agent of the state?

you are being netural, as any agent of the state is required to be in this situation. As mentioned above though, as being an agent of the state, your rights under the second provision of the establishment clause are in fact voided...theres a court cases which gives the precedent for this, if you bug me for it i suppose ill go look it up.

Nothing is fairly clear when lawyers and politicians are involved. When one religious viewpoint is that religions should not be practiced in public, it becomes almost impossible for the government to keep a neutral stance. The only truly neutral stance is to allow everyone, no matter what their religious viewpoint may be, to practice that religion anywhere they choose without interference from the state. Being silent on the issue of religion is supporting those who say, "we should be silent about religion".

This i believe is hopeful interpretation. I believe the legal system has rightly taken the opinion that, outside of public institutions people can certainly live out a very active religious life. There is nothing keeping anyone from going on their own time and choosing to live out their religious life how they see fit, inside of our own criminal laws. However, in the public sector to fail to promote neutrality (which people misconstrue as anti-religion) you protect everyone, which is hard to do without neutrality. Furthermore, as has been suggested, as this country is in many senses a christian leaning country, it is most likely these beliefs would be forwarded. Certainly this feels unfair to any christian and its not hard to understand why, but in a secular nation, these are the policies that probably have to be adopted to serve the nation as a whole.

[jay_a2j]

I honestly do not care if you pray at home and would never stop you from doing so. And I'm not sure what you are talking about in the second half but my opinion applies to ALL religions. Keep it at home and in the Mosque please and I'm happy.

Does this mean you also get offended by:

1) People wearing "Anti-God" T-shits?

2) Pro-Life/Pro-Choice bumperstickers? (which may or may not be religiously inspired)

3)Christmas carolers?

Basically what you want is a reduction of religious freedom. You want to confine it to "the bedroom". I think you're living in the wrong country. Opps, there goes "Freedom of expression"! The problem with freedom is that you get everyone wanting the freedoms that makes them happy and the desire to limit freedoms of others, that you don't agree with.

If I can't wear my "Jesus Saves" shirt to the park, YOU can't wear your "There is no God" shirt there either.

[CrazyAnglican]

I agree totally with this statement, but have one question. One viewpoint about religion states flatly that religion is a waste of time and should be kept out of the public eye. Isn’t the government showing preference for that viewpoint by discouraging religion in public spaces and refusing to allow any religious relic or media in government areas?

But that isn't the reason they keep it out of the public eye. Ofcourse you come to the same conclusion in that religion should be kept out of the public eye, but the way you get there is different and very important. It's kept out because that's the only way to not show preference to any religion. And believing religion is a waste of time isn't exactly a religion, just as science isn't a religion so the government can fund scientific projects.

I actually come to a very different conclusion. I believe that every religious viewpoint, including atheism, should be accepted. That is neutrality. Everyone's beliefs are okay with us; we do not care what religion you are. The idea that we should hide it and not discuss it is preferential to atheism.
The grounds for this are clear, if you look at it from the perspective of which viewpoint is the government consistently mimicking. Atheism is not a neutral stance it is a negative stance (ie. there is no reason to discuss religion because there are no gods). The govenment cannot follow a negative stance (we will not discuss religion) and claim to be neutral on the subject. I would support a courthouse filled with representative beliefs from those present in my community. It is representative of the people and it is neutral.

However the liberties side must also be discussed. We also arent allowed to refuse benefits or give special entitlements to someone because of their religious preference. In the workplace an individual is allowed to be a homophobic bigot if they so choose, becuase we are required to follow the second half of the establishment clause. Likewise, you cant fire someone for praying or cause them harm because this is not respecting their religious belief.

Now this isn’t the case. In the private sector you can be fired for anything as long as the company is following its own established policies for firing an employee. If there are rules (and I hope there are) against harassing people due to their sexual preference, then you can be fired for that. If there are rules against public prayer, then you can be fired for that as well.

You misunderstood. In the workplace you can't actually be fired for being a homophobic bigot, you can only be fired for acting like one. So it means keeping your beliefs to yourself and not bothering anyone with it.

I’m sure that you were talking about public sector jobs in the United States, though. I am a public school teacher; if I began each class by praying aloud I would certainly be censured and eventually fired whether I encouraged anyone to pray with me or not. Teachers could also be fired for derogatory remarks toward homosexuals because this “does not promote the development of character” in their students.

I do, in my silence, teach kids that religion isn’t a fit topic for discussion in one of the first public institutions that they encounter in their lives. Whose perspective on religion am I supporting as an agent of the state?

Indeed. That's because you act openly in a "non-public" space. If you just believed homosexuals were evil and should be shot all the time, but do not say it in the class or go out shooting gays, then you cannot be fired.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here. Nobody is ever punished for their thoughts because we have no way of knowing what those thoughts are. People are fired (if indeed they are at fault) for their words and actions as these are our means of knowing their thoughts. If I misunderstood it was in this assumption. I may not be fired for being a Christian, but I can certainly be fired for acting like one. On the other hand, I have heard that atheists have no agenda and just do not believe in or talk about God. If this is the case then I can neither be fired for being or acting like an atheist, hence my argument that this is not a neutral stance.
I act like an atheist all the time, when a child pushes to speak about or encourage others in his religious views, I discourage this in the interest of being "neutral". Got Tonkaed even agrees that as an agent if the state their are court cases pending that state my first amendment rights are void in the classroom. Can you void someone's rights to speak and still claim to be neutral toward what they are saying?

Okay first, let’s distinguish what I’m saying from what I am not saying. I have no problem with the separation aspect of the first amendment. It’s there to keep me from being coerced, by the government, to accept any differing religious belief, even the idea that God does not exist. My argument is against the following types of statements which do reflect an idea that religion should be hidden from public view.

id just like to quickly add i didnt necessarily mean you anglican, just many in general.

I never take anything you write personally. You are always articulate and present good arguments.

I honestly do not care if you pray at home and would never stop you from doing so. And I'm not sure what you are talking about in the second half but my opinion applies to ALL religions. Keep it at home and in the Mosque please and I'm happy.

One viewpoint about religion states flatly that religion is a waste of time and should be kept out of the public eye. Isn’t the government showing preference for that viewpoint by discouraging religion in public spaces and refusing to allow any religious relic or media in government areas?

well i would argue that out of the two they believe showing neturality is better served by keeping images out. Since you can keep an image out without making necessarily a public stance that this religion is prefered (although it may be implied) it is a less visible stance than if something was to be prominently shown (as in many cases the ten commandments was) which would violate different tests under the establishment clause. I think it reflects the recent choice the legal system has made to follow their own guidelines.

I would counter that you cannot tell someone that their views are not to be stated publicly and still claim to be neutral toward them as long as another group is stating that your views should not be stated publicly. Doing this is preferrential to the one's who want silence. The only truly neutral stance is to allow everyone to state their views publicly without government interference. That way even the people who want everyone to shut up can say "Hey! Shut Up!". In this case there is no preferrential treatment for anyone.

Now this isn’t the case. In the private sector you can be fired for anything as long as the company is following its own established policies for firing an employee. If there are rules (and I hope there are) against harassing people due to their sexual preference, then you can be fired for that. If there are rules against public prayer, then you can be fired for that as well.

this is becoming less and less true. I am referring here to your last statement as increasingly, companies which have these policies are put under legal pressure for these laws. Any law which fires someone based on policies against religious practice violates the liberties part of the establishment clause, and could certainly be legally challenged.

I'd argue this one, but private sector isn't really a good indicator of governmental stance. So okay we don't agree on this, but I don't see it as germain to the debate.

I’m sure that you were talking about public sector jobs in the United States, though. I am a public school teacher; if I began each class by praying aloud I would certainly be censured and eventually fired whether I encouraged anyone to pray with me or not. Teachers could also be fired for derogatory remarks toward homosexuals because this “does not promote the development of character” in their students.

Again there seems to be a failure to identify differences between the first and second provisions. In your position in a public school, you are seen primarily as a vessel of the first provision and not of the second while you are working. Since in your class, if you give certain remarks, these remarks may violate the many different tests of the first provision. On legal grounds in the public position you are in, qualifies for different standards than the private position just mentioned, as it is likely he is not in position to advance or promote beliefs.

I'm not against this per se. I understand that I have a captive audience and I understand what it feels like to have someone draw a governement paycheck for slamming my beliefs. As an educator I wouldn't expose any of my students to this even if all strictures were repealed tomorrow.

I do, in my silence, teach kids that religion isn’t a fit topic for discussion in one of the first public institutions that they encounter in their lives. Whose perspective on religion am I supporting as an agent of the state?

you are being netural, as any agent of the state is required to be in this situation. As mentioned above though, as being an agent of the state, your rights under the second provision of the establishment clause are in fact voided...theres a court cases which gives the precedent for this, if you bug me for it i suppose ill go look it up.

I merely used this as an example. My point was that in front of my sixth graders I am expected to not talk about religion. I am also expected to control the classroom and discourage my students from proselytizing for any religious viewpoint. In this regard, I am fomenting religious intolerance because my students are never exposed to contradictory religious views. This is not neutral it's merely an attempt to insure that nobody changes their mind as a result of anything I say. I could easily show an attitude of tolerance for all religious viewpoints and truly be neutral.

Nothing is fairly clear when lawyers and politicians are involved. When one religious viewpoint is that religions should not be practiced in public, it becomes almost impossible for the government to keep a neutral stance. The only truly neutral stance is to allow everyone, no matter what their religious viewpoint may be, to practice that religion anywhere they choose without interference from the state. Being silent on the issue of religion is supporting those who say, "we should be silent about religion".

This i believe is hopeful interpretation. I believe the legal system has rightly taken the opinion that, outside of public institutions people can certainly live out a very active religious life. There is nothing keeping anyone from going on their own time and choosing to live out their religious life how they see fit, inside of our own criminal laws. However, in the public sector to fail to promote neutrality (which people misconstrue as anti-religion) you protect everyone, which is hard to do without neutrality. Furthermore, as has been suggested, as this country is in many senses a christian leaning country, it is most likely these beliefs would be forwarded. Certainly this feels unfair to any christian and its not hard to understand why, but in a secular nation, these are the policies that probably have to be adopted to serve the nation as a whole.

It isn't misconstruing that stance to realize that a government that forbids its employees from speaking about their religion is taking an anti-religious stance. It is far more neutral to allow everyone to speak openly about their own ideas and beliefs. Telling one group or one set of groups that they can't speak openly isn't neutral.

[mr. incrediball]

you know a jay thread's gone out of hand when the posts get unreadably long...