Offsite links
Stuff 4 Sale
Military Atheists
This page has some tools I'll use to write a more cogent explanation of why Separation of Church and State is a valid and necessary concept in government. The following outline shows what I've current included in the page.
Outline [top] The Constitution, The First Amendment The Federalist Papers, and opinions of the Founders Case Law, including Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Reynolds v.
US (1878) Traditions of the US, including "In God We Trust" on
coins (1864), as a motto (1956), "Under God" in the
Pledge of Allegience (1954), Chaplains in the military and
Congress, prayer in schools and other public events, public
displays of religious items . . . Opinions of other great Americans and Philosophers, Abraham
Lincoln, Mark Twain, Robert Ingersoll [top] A good site for quotes from the founders can be found at: http://gramercy.ios.com/~restemey/nc/dogma.html This is a shorter version of what I'd like to have here. Even
though it's short, it hits most of the major points. http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.html [top] Let's work out this 'big lie.' One must be lied to, but I, for
myself, have seen the facts clearly, and in various forms. I ask
you where you got your facts. [top] RE: "Prayer ruling was flat
wrong" by Charley Reese, presented June 28th,
2000, page 8A To the Editor: I am writing in reference to the
article, "Prayer ruling was flat wrong," run in the AM,
June, 28th. The article covered every misconception
and distortion that Christian fundamentalists have spread about
the history and law of our nation, and the issue of prayer in
schools. The article even begins with the time-honored shock
tactic of associating atheism and communism, which are, in fact,
mutually exclusive. Presenting Mikhail Gorbachev’s espoused
suppression of religion seems absurd if one merely turns a few
pages of the same paper. Page B4 has the headline "Gorbachev
still popular at the Vatican." Extracting truth from hype in
the rest of the article is scarcely more difficult. Just as Gorbachev is inimical to
our national identity, the Authors of the Constitution personify
it. The article gives the example of George Washington, our first
great military leader. However, he did not write the
Constitution. Those who did, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin,
among others, are the ones who formed our Separation of Church
and State. It is through the example of these men, the leaders of
the intellectual revolution, not of the military revolution, that
the Court rightfully interprets the Constitution. Far from being "flat
wrong," the ruling was true to the historical nature of
religion in government and is by no means a "contradiction
of 200 years of American history." Anyone who places our
nations anxiety about government-sponsored religion prior to the
landing of the first religious refugees in Plymouth are pushing
an agenda other than the truth. Oft-cited examples of references
to God in our Pledge of Allegiance and national motto did not
appear until 1954 and 1956, respectively. And far from supporting
the further unconstitutional establishment of religion, they are
no more than mistakes yet to be corrected. The article’s greatest
misrepresentation is of the nature of our 1st
Amendment religious protections. The article asks when a local
school district is the Federal Government. I would redirect that
question to those who fought to desegregate schools who argued
that the civil rights spoken of in the Constitution also applied
to schoolchildren. The article asks when a privately-spoken
prayer constitutes an establishment of religion public schools.
The Court lucidly addressed this question in its opinion, "The delivery of a message such as
the invocation here--on school property, at
school-sponsored events, over the school's public address
system, by a speaker representing the student body, under
the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a
school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages
public prayer--is not properly characterized as
"private" speech." The Court does not deserve the
derisive label of unscholarly political appointees that the
article lays upon them, a label that I’m sure will be
withheld in the event that the Court passes a ruling favorable to
the AM. Rather than question their decision, we should applaud
them for making a fully researched and well-considered decision
despite the fact that it was, in fact, widely unpopular. It is
another needed brick in the wall of Separation and a tribute to
the Checks and Balances of our system of government. [top] The July 15-16 edition of The Times, page D2, included
an article touting the value of prayer and Christian fellowship. The article
asserted Christians and prospective Christians must pray and keep the company of
Christians in order to solve their problems. This kind of easy answer to our
problems has all the hidden dangers of get-rich-quick schemes and diet plans.
The mix of prayer and Christian fellowship as this article explains it is a
recipe for a backward and divided society. The first theme of the article, prayer, is summed up in the quote,
"Nothing can help more in overcoming life's problems than spending hours
and hours meditating upon the word of God." If I were a single parent with
no education, no job, and a child to feed, extended study of the Bible would
only get me evicted, found unfit to parent, and left with nothing by the church.
Countless Christian testimony will say otherwise, but I refer the reader to
get-rich-schemes and miracle diet plans that preach the same formula for easy
success, and seem to have unlimited supporters, yet bear no fruits. Countless
testimonials don't validate the flawed premises upon which the schemes,
Christian or commercial are based. In this case, the flawed lesson of the
article is "prayer is a substitute for hard work and facing life's
problems." That is antithetical to the way of the world and a responsible
person, by definition, will agree.
The more frightening undertone of the article is one of segregation and
social supremacy. As the article explains the benefits of the "body of
Christ," it draws a line separating Christians from non-Christians. A
Christian will assert that it is not hatred or conceit that is their reason for
being with Christians.
To a Jew, Muslim, or non-believer who is denied a job, a spot on the PTA
board, or on the tenant's committee, the answer sounds reminiscent of the worst
kind of racial profiling in our nation's past.
The Mid-Ohio Valley is not socially diverse by any definition, but as we
become a larger and more worldly community, we, Christians and others, must
learn to understand, accept, and value persons of all beliefs and not withdraw
into a protective shell of Christian bigotry and hatred.
Links
Post 1
Op-Ed 1
Op-Ed 2
Outline for information:
Links. My Philo page has most of the links I use. These are more
specific.
The following is a reply I wrote in response to someone's claim
that I had been taken in by the 'big lie' of Separation of Church
and State.
I'm going to just assume you meant to quote the 1st Amendment and
not the 2nd. The 1st Amendment does talk about the government
making no law about religion or restricting its free exercise.
The phrase 'Separation of Church and State' refers directly to
that part of the 1st Amendment. The phrase arose from the words
of our founders. Since then, it has been established and upheld
as a necessary part of our system of government. It is only an
argument of semantics to say that the exact words are not in the
Constitution. The idea is clearly there.
You next note how the pilgrims to this nation came to escape
religious tyrrany. That's true. It's also true that they
immediately set up religious tyrranies of their own. The
combination of both those events, and basic reason, led the
Founders to insist that religion remain separate from government.
To say that religion meant only Christianity ignores the beliefs
of the Founders. You quote Jefferson specifically as supporting
your kind of freedom of religion. Here are a few quotes of my own
from Jefferson:
He coined the term Separation of Church and State:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the
whole American people which declared that their legislature
should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of
separation between church and state."
--Letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802)
He clarifies the place of Christianity:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common
law"
--Letter to Thomas Cooper (Feb. 10, 1814)
He clarifies his personal opinion on Christianity:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions
of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition
(Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded
on fables and mythology."
--The Jefferson Bible
He clarifies his position on religions in general:
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile
to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting
his abuses in return for protection to his own."
--Letter to Horatio Spafford (Mar. 17, 1814)
He pens a version of religious freedom more specific about who
must go to worship:
"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any
religious worship place or ministry whatsoever or shall otherwise
suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all
men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their
opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no
wise... affect their civil capacities."
--Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779)
and one last note for amvets, the Pledge. It didn't have the
phrase "Under God" until 1954. This is a relatively
recent, and unfortunate, violation of Separation of Church and
State.
I challenge you to find the facts for yourself. The truth is
there, you need only look past the propoganda spread by those who
need the government to help legitimize their mythology.
The following is a Letter to the Editor I
wrote in response to an Op-Ed condemning the Supreme Court
decision against prayer at football games (Santa Fe Independent
Schools '99).
The following is a letter to the editor in response to an article by a Baptist
Minister who writes for the paper. It was printed in the Marietta Times Wednesday, July 26,
2000. If it's still posted, the article may be found on the Times website
at this address: Christians can't withdraw into a protective shell
To worship the wise is much easier than to profit by their wisdom. --Clinton Lee Scott
[ see all quotes ]