First Amendment thoughts.

sfga6970 · 01-10-2005, 16:52

Any comments?

"It's always a source of amazement to me how the courts, the lawyers and the bureaucrats can twist the words of the Constitution to mean anything they want them to mean. ... Take, for example, the First Amendment, the words of which have been distorted into meaning that God and religion, primarily Christianity, have no place in public life and that Christmas itself should be abolished from public schools, public buildings and public places. Yet what does the First Amendment actually say regarding religion? Here it is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's all it says. After that it talks about free speech, a free press and the right of the people to petition the government. But out of those 16 words regarding the relationship of religion to government, the courts over the years have steadily issued rulings based on the first 10 words of the amendment and ignoring the last six that go far beyond anything the amendment even hints at. If words mean what they say it seems to me what the amendment is saying is that Congress cannot pass a law that would establish a national religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Baal worship or anything else. And, at the same time, it, meaning Congress, cannot pass a law in any way banning the practice of religion. Seems pretty plain to me." --Lyn Nofziger

scott.voigt · 01-10-2005, 17:00

To me... it means what it means... you can't tell the people this is how you have to do it, and you can't tell them that they can't do it that way either. Just my thoughts.

sfga6970 · 01-10-2005, 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott.voigt

To me... it means what it means... you can't tell the people this is how you have to do it, and you can't tell them that they can't do it that way either. Just my thoughts.

I agree with you. What it says to me is that we can't establish a "state religion", but everyone is free to practice what we believe.

scott.voigt · 01-10-2005, 17:17

Correct...I also think that means that you can't stop someone from saying under god, but it also means you can't make them say that when stating the pledge. Just as you can't stop someone from teaching how the drafters of the constitution were religous people. That's just stating the facts and to think that violates someones rights is simply stupid

Snowden · 01-10-2005, 18:17

It seems to me also, that our founders had the Amendments in an order of importance that should not be overlooked. Freedom of religion was their first consideration, despite the Indian wars, the invading armies of other countries and/or the need for food that was at times necessarily hunted down.

We who know a bit of the history of the beginnings of this country and this all-important piece of paper we call our Constitution, realize why this was first. All the Amendments in that original Bill of Rights were carefully and thoughtfully made.

Today we have a Supreme Court and a seemingly nationwide idea that this paper is "living" and subject to change. It was never meant to be considered changeable or subject to opinions other than those who wrote it. We are allowing it to be changed, ruined, unless we get back to the normal meanings of the amendments first put on that Constitution. Just my opinion; but two of the most important of our rights are under constant attack just now. This one and the right to bear arms.

And I believe all 10 are necessary - picking away at them this way will result in this country becoming like all the others. It must not be allowed to happen.

Caldric · 01-10-2005, 19:12

I think it is perfectly simple what it says.

It does in essence separate church and state completely. That does not mean it makes government unholy only that the government will stay out of religion except to enforce the rights of the First Amendment.

Depending on your point of view that does separate Church and State. Mainly because of the point; free exercise thereof this is a double edged sword so to speak. In three words it separates the Church and State. Because to allow the free exercise thereof demands no favoritisms for religion. Most of the time this is what the ACLU will argue because say something like the Cross in the City of LA Seal , their argument is this is favoritism towards Christian religion.

Establishment of Religion is fairly straight forward, it removed such things as the Church of England from ever becoming an issue here where the State sponsors a church or religious faction.

I will tell you I was a victim of school prayer, it does not belong in public schools and has no place there. When I was in elementary school they would take me out of my normal academic classes to take me to a prayer class with a few other students, perhaps they asked my mother I do not know but it was wrong and I hated it. This was the the Southern Baptist that I despise to this day and will until I pass from this Earth. It was wrong, scary, against the Constitution and my rights and most likely the core reason of me having NO use for prayer or religion in general. Well that and science also. When I went to these places to be preached too about going to hell I always thought of how weak they were and how much religion takes from the individual, I actually hated religion in all forms for many years afterwards.

Religion is a deeply personal thing, it does not belong in government or school unless it is private school.

Snowden · 01-10-2005, 20:46

Quote:

By Caldric: I will tell you I was a victim of school prayer, it does not belong in public schools and has no place there. When I was in elementary school they would take me out of my normal academic classes to take me to a prayer class with a few other students, perhaps they asked my mother I do not know but it was wrong and I hated it. This was the the Southern Baptist that I despise to this day and will until I pass from this Earth.

We had our youngest son in a Southern Baptist school for one year - we'd been told it was superior academically to the public schools. It was not; in fact, he lost ground by being there, and the teachers and/or principal told him and other children who were of different denominations that we, their parents, were lying to them. He caught up quickly on being returned to the public school - but the education at that time in those public schools was superior to almost any in the country.

They did lie to our kids in the Baptist school; I share your lack of fondness for that denomination partly because of that. But to use people to judge God - they don't realize we do that, do they. But how else can a child judge? The child usually believes adults; my son was one who did not - you didn't have the differences to make a similar comparison.

Quote:

It was wrong, scary, against the Constitution and my rights and most likely the core reason of me having NO use for prayer or religion in general. Well that and science also. When I went to these places to be preached too about going to hell I always thought of how weak they were and how much religion takes from the individual, I actually hated religion in all forms for many years afterwards.

I've never heard of taking a child out of regular classes for a religious class. We said the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of the day; any who didn't say it were either unnoticed or simply ignored. Then we said the Pledge of Allegiance and went to work. Our sons said only the Pledge.

Religion shouldn't take from a person; if it is taught properly - that is, as Jesus said it should be and it is so seldom taught - then it adds considerably to the person. I believe all children should have some religious teaching, if only to open their minds to the possibility of God. He is in no way against science - nor should science attempt to disprove God. They should not be in conflict.

After all, whether you believe this world was created, as I do, or was simply evolved from nothing somehow bumping into nothing else, science is the one subject that can explain the how and why of it.

There is a lot of intelligence in the way things are in this world; I believe it had to have been created, if only for that reason. But I don't believe in coincidence, you see. I believe everything has a cause and an effect - and isn't that sort of basic science?