This is so crazy

[Hemidakota]

And you know why we have the constitutional amendment separation of state and church.

[christmasvalleyfarms]

You're kidding, right, Hemi? Sometimes I have trouble discerning people's humorous remarks. :-)

You do know there's no such amendment - you do know where that phrase comes from? A letter written by Thomas Jefferson - even a recent Circuit Court of Appeals decision called that phrase ("separation of church and state") a "tired extra-constitutional construct" that really needs to be gone.

6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals:
“The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

from the CINCINNATI ENQUIRER — In an astounding return to judicial interpretation of the actual text of the United States Constitution, a unanimous panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Tuesday issued an historic decision declaring that “the First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

In upholding a Kentucky county’s right to display the Ten Commandments, the panel called the American Civil Liberties Union’s repeated claims to the contrary “extra-constitutional” and “tiresome." 6th Circuit Judge Richard Suhrheinrich wrote in the unanimous decision: “The ACLU makes repeated reference to the ’separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion.”

The words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, though according to polls, a majority of Americans have been misled to believe that they do... For background information, see: Separation of church and state in the United States: Information from Answers.com

[MarginOfError]

"A tired extra-constitutional construct." Good description. I also like this descriptioin:

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 just wish I could remember where that quote came from.

[Hemidakota]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

[Hemidakota]

Contructs is part of life now....get over it.

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by christmasvalleyfarms

You're kidding, right, Hemi? Sometimes I have trouble discerning people's humorous remarks. :-)

You do know there's no such amendment - you do know where that phrase comes from? A letter written by Thomas Jefferson - even a recent Circuit Court of Appeals decision called that phrase ("separation of church and state") a "tired extra-constitutional construct" that really needs to be gone.

6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals:
“The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

from the CINCINNATI ENQUIRER — In an astounding return to judicial interpretation of the actual text of the United States Constitution, a unanimous panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Tuesday issued an historic decision declaring that “the First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

In upholding a Kentucky county’s right to display the Ten Commandments, the panel called the American Civil Liberties Union’s repeated claims to the contrary “extra-constitutional” and “tiresome." 6th Circuit Judge Richard Suhrheinrich wrote in the unanimous decision: “The ACLU makes repeated reference to the ’separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion.”

The words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, though according to polls, a majority of Americans have been misled to believe that they do... For background information, see: Separation of church and state in the United States: Information from Answers.com

[Same contents...] thanks for the correction.

By Barbara A. Simon, Esq.
Freedom Writer, January/February 1996

* Index: The Politics of Religion (Editorials)
* Home to Positive Atheism

There are those who say that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. They are correct. The words "a wall of separation between church and state" are not found in our Constitution. Neither are the words "separation of powers"; "right to travel"; "freedom of association": or "religious liberty" found in our Constitution. This does not mean that those concepts are not embodied in our Constitution. The words "wall of separation between church and state" are the words of Thomas Jefferson.

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [government neutrality toward religion], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religious freedom]." The 14th Amendment extended this requirement beyond the Federal government to all the state governments.

In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court stated, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" This was further emphasized in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), as expressed in the opinion for the majority written by Associate Justice Hugo Black. He wrote, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a three-prong test to determine if a governmental action is neutral toward religion. First, government institutions or legislation must have a secular purpose; second, the primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and third, there must not be an excessive government entanglement with religion. This principle was further clarified by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984). She said, "What is crucial is that a governmental practice not have the effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion."

The Supreme Court decisions provide an explanation of the rights and responsibilities granted by our Constitution. "Separation of church and state" is a constitutional principle that has been embraced by Supreme Court jurisprudence for more than one hundred years.

Those who insist upon denying the constitutional principle of "separation of church and state" are engaging in revisionist history. "Separation of church and state" is the prerequisite for religious and political liberty.

[christmasvalleyfarms]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

[Same contents...] thanks for the correction.

The Supreme Court decisions provide an explanation of the rights and responsibilities granted by our Constitution. "Separation of church and state" is a constitutional principle that has been embraced by Supreme Court jurisprudence for more than one hundred years.

Those who insist upon denying the constitutional principle of "separation of church and state" are engaging in revisionist history. "Separation of church and state" is the prerequisite for religious and political liberty.

I would take issue with her interpretation. The prerequisite for religious and political liberty is the text of the First Amendment. I would agree with the 6th Circuit Court in their calling a spade a spade - it is an extra-constitutional phrase (not truly a "constitutional principle" - it seems to me that those trying to call it constitutional are doing the revising) and we need to get out from behind it and back to the original intent.

That phrase has been used to attempt to in fact deny religious liberty for years. Let's weigh issues of government involvement/endorsement/protection of a particular religion on their own merits, and not continue to use this phrase to promote a belief that the only good American government is a government without mention or acknowledgement of God in any way, shape, or form, (not just endorsement of a particular faith, as it was intended) and the only free society is one in which noone need ever be "offended" by the mention of religion or God.

Kind of off-topic here, but....we can be a country unashamedly founded on Judeo-Christian principles and yet be welcoming to those of all faiths. Maybe we've not done that well enough in the past but it is a sad mistake to abandon our heritage and principles just because we have failed them in the past. OR to allow others to bully us into feeling like we need to apologize for who we are and how we got here. For example - when I go to the local Jewish Community Center to take a class or attend an event I sure don't feel unwelcome or offended cause it's called the Jewish Community Center. I feel appreciative of who they are and their sharing their resources and heritage and facilities with all. Yet the YW/YMCA has removed the expansion of the acronym because they feel it would be limiting and exclusionary to identify themselves with Christianity. ????

I just think this phrase has been responsible for the development of an incredibly unconstitutional forcing of any semblance of God, specifically a Christian God, out of the public square and public consciousness and relevance in this country. And that's more than unfortunate.

[MarginOfError]

Originally Posted by christmasvalleyfarms

I would take issue with her interpretation. The prerequisite for religious and political liberty is the text of the First Amendment. I would agree with the 6th Circuit Court in their calling a spade a spade - it is an extra-constitutional phrase and we need to get out from behind it and back to the original intent.

That phrase has been used to attempt to in fact deny religious liberty for years. Let's weigh issues of government involvement/endorsement/protection of religion on their own merits, and not use this phrase to continue to promote a belief that the only good American government is a government without mention or acknowledgement of God in any way, shape, or form, and the only free society is one in which noone need ever be "offended" by the mention of religion or God.

What religious liberties have you been denied?

[christmasvalleyfarms]

Read my last two paragraphs? It's about free expression - look around you and whether it's the school kid being criminalized for bringing a Christmas gift to his classmates that mentions Jesus (most extreme is the recent court challenge, which failed, fortunately, against including the Rudolph song in a school "holiday" pageant because it mentioned the word "Christmas" and "Santa" which were too Christian and thus offensive), or the attempts to remove the mention of "God" from any national expression or monument - to allow any sort of perversion or immorality to fill the airwaves in the name of free speech, but to censor a church's preaching against homosexuality which their faith demands they do - I know, MOE, you will probably just write me off as a histrionic fanatic. But I really do cry about this - I did just this morning as I had a talk with my son, and am doing so again as I write this. I don't know if you're LDS. But here's my heart - trample it if you will.

Basically, I love my Heavenly Father so so much. I owe to Him all that I have and I am. He gave me (us) my life, my liberty, the gospel and prophets to keep me safe and headed in the right direction in the midst of the world's increasing insanity - the Savior gave me His life. And I think of the proverb that says "how sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child." And it breaks my heart to see my Father, and my Savior, mocked, and derided, and excluded from our national consciousness in the name of including every other special interest group that squeals the loudest. My heart breaks for the hate, for the misunderstanding that the adversary exploits... and all the hurt.

There is no room in the inn anymore. In the very nation He led us to and inspired the founding of so that we could worship Him freely and honor Him in our daily lives. I am old enough to remember going downtown with my family to enjoy the beautiful Nativity display in front of the County Courthouse - we weren't the worse society for it - we all, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist alike, that we knew-and our family knew some of each - were able to share in a unique season of goodwill to all regardless of who or what we worshiped. To me Christmas is the ultimate expression of inclusivity - the message that God loves us all, whomever, Jewish, Muslim, atheists too(!), equally and that at least for that season we could put aside those differences and come together in the almost magical spirit of love and brotherhood. And the exclusion of the beautiful influence of that unifying spirit, that I remember experiencing at this time of year, is something I feel very sorely denied - and that my children will never know.

[MarginOfError]

[QUOTE=christmasvalleyfarms;298968]Read my last two paragraphs? It's about free expression - look around you and whether it's the school kid being criminalized for bringing a Christmas gift to his classmates that mentions Jesus (most extreme is the recent court challenge, which failed, fortunately, against including the Rudolph song in a school "holiday" pageant because it mentioned the word "Christmas" and "Santa" which were too Christian and thus offensive), or the attempts to remove the mention of "God" from any national expression or monument - to allow any sort of perversion or immorality to fill the airwaves in the name of free speech, but to censor a church's preaching against homosexuality which their faith demands they do - I know, MOE, you will probably just write me off as a histrionic fanatic. But I really do cry about this - I did just this morning as I had a talk with my son, and am doing so again as I write this. I don't know if you're LDS. But here's my heart - trample it if you will.[QUOTE]

Nobody's religious freedoms were restricted in these instances. The First Amendment defines the government's role in religion, and that role is that it should remain neutral. A lot of that gets determined at the community level. You speak of a kid being criminalized for bringing a Christmas gift to his classmates (a source would be nice here), but yet, the ACLU defended the right of a Christian group in Massachusetts to distribute candy canes with a Christian message in school. If you look at the cases that are building instead of the cases that terrify you, you might find that the level of tolerance for Christianity is higher than perceived.

In some communities, school choirs are discouraged from singing religious songs. In other communities, the choirs sing songs from multiple religions. The question is about neutrality and fair representation. Some communities achieve that by not presenting any, others try it by presenting them all. In Washington state, there's a community that said, "we're putting up a nativity scene, any other religious groups may share the space to put up emblems and tokens of their religion." This is perhaps most fair as it allows representation of all groups in proportion to their numbers.

Basically, I love my Heavenly Father so so much. I owe to Him all that I have and I am. He gave me (us) my life, my liberty, the gospel and prophets to keep me safe and headed in the right direction in the midst of the world's increasing insanity - the Savior gave me His life. And I think of the proverb that says "how sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child." And it breaks my heart to see my Father, and my Savior, mocked, and derided, and excluded from our national consciousness in the name of including every other special interest group that squeals the loudest. My heart breaks for the hate, for the misunderstanding that the adversary exploits... and all the hurt.

So do everything you can not to perpetuate it. Saying things like, "they won't be happy until all the Christians are locked in a closet" only increases tensions and animosities.

There is no room in the inn anymore. In the very nation He led us to and inspired the founding of so that we could worship Him freely and honor Him in our daily lives. I am old enough to remember going downtown with my family to enjoy the beautiful Nativity display in front of the County Courthouse - we weren't the worse society for it - we all, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist alike, that we knew-and our family knew some of each - were able to share in a unique season of goodwill to all regardless of who or what we worshiped. To me Christmas is the ultimate expression of inclusivity - the message that God loves us all, whomever, Jewish, Muslim, atheists too(!), equally and that at least for that season we could put aside those differences and come together in the almost magical spirit of love and brotherhood. And the exclusion of the beautiful influence of that unifying spirit, that I remember experiencing at this time of year, is something I feel very sorely denied - and that my children will never know.

Ending Christmas displays at public venues is not the same as limiting one's self expression. You are free to put up any Christian symbol on your property you like. You are free to wear whatever religious clothing you like. You are free to proselyte in any forum where people freely gather (note, public schools are not such a place, which is why administrators go to such lengths, sometimes over-zealously, to avoid the appearance of such activity).

Eliminating religious expressions in government is not the same as trampling the right to religious expression. I know that can hurt sometimes, but it is the price you pay for living in a society where you are free to express yourself.