http://www.newsweek.com/id/163438

Sarah Palin used taxpayer money to support religious activities.

Where does it say there should be a separation?

In the case of Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) The US Supreme Court said that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." This is what is generally referred to as "separation".

Given time, I can pull up a few Founding Fathers that held basically the same opinion - or you could look them up yourself.

broadway sez: Where does it say there should be a separation?

Alright, I'm on my way down to teach evolution in your Sunday school classes for kids.

>>teach evolution

I learned about evolution in the private Christian high school I graduated from side by side with Creationism. My take is that there is nothing about this in the Consitution except as written in the First Ammendment. Some founding fathers may have written opinions loosely related but not law.

>>should not prefer one religion to another

what would that actually mean and how does it relate to this thread?

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.

The concept of separation is implied by the above prohibition of congress from being able to make laws to establish an official government-sanctioned church or to give approval to specific religious groups. Compare that to countries that had official government-sponsored religious organizations or countries where the government could collect taxes on behalf of religious organizations that it considered "legitimate."

>>to establish an official government-sanctioned church or to give approval to specific religious groups.

2 different things going on here to which the first is in the Constitution...establishment means approval?

>>prohibiting the free exercise thereof

so what your saying is that Palin should of visited her old church on her dime?

We've been here before.

(and it sucks)

In this nation, the government does not intrude on our religious choices. That means we can be free to worship, or not worship as we all see fit.

That's the separation.

We don't promote religion on the public dime, we don't legislate peoples religious choices and we don't use religion as the basis for our law.

Said law deals with matters of property and freedom, and it's about dealing with harm, not making moral choices for everybody.

(those are for us to make, and we limit that freedom by real harm to others)

Yes, Broadway, establishment means approval. Say we pick Hindu as the national religion. That's the "official" one, leaving the others all in some lesser state.

Why?

Because they are NOT the official one.

Would that piss you off?

(and I'm absolutely sure it would)

That's approval, and it's really easy to see, if you imagine the lie you would have to live, if your particular faith were not the "official" one.

As an American, proud of our history and our values, I find it just horrible that we must have this conversation regularly, as if NONE of us actually went to school, or NONE of us paid attention.

You had civics same as me, unless you are educated in a church school, where they often leave the core American civics out. (BTW: The one I went to tried that, and it's one of the reasons I have very serious problems with organized religion. Thought they were dumb ass control freaks then, and nothing has changed.)

Had I been weaker of mind then, I may well be one of the "Christian Nation" bozos walking around, just drooling for the chance to legislate religious choice for everybody, so I can feel better about my particular choices.

Ugh...

Remember that control issue deal a while back?

Yep. This is another manifestation of it. It's considerably easier to fix than some are though. That's the good news.

Wanna get started on that right now, today, right here?

(hoping so)

Let's make this easy then, so the healing can begin as soon as you finish considering my post.

You make the case for a sect, or brand of faith, other than your own, being the official one. Start there and you will very quickly understand the impact that has on all of us and why, as Americans, we don't entertain this kind of thing.

Go ahead. Pick one, other than yours. Make sure you argue hard for your faith not being the official one. Make sure you think through how you will tell your grand kids and family why their faith isn't the official one. Why it's different and how that impacts things.

When you have to perform a ritual or dress a specific way, or play a specific role by law, even though it's counter to your own true faith, think hard about how that is gonna feel.

You know. Living that lie. Yeah, that. It really sucks.

Argue for this being a Buddist nation, or Hindu, or Muslim, Catholic, Pastavarian (yes!!), etc...

Anything but yours being the established religion of the United States of America.

You then can't advocate your faith as being the true one. Others could legislate theirs be taught in school, to your kids, without you being able to do a damn thing about it.

Theirs could be made part of the currency, embodied in the anthems, be required at public events, mandated on the holy day, when ever that actually is.

That's where we go, if we don't have seperation of church and state. A whole bunch of us end up living lies, lives not true to our own religious choices, or lack of choices! Some of us are not religious at all!

Go ahead. I dare you. Make the case right here. Make it for any faith but yours and let's see how long you ask "where does it say separation?".

"I learned about evolution in the private Christian high school I graduated from side by side with Creationism."

LOL. And I'm sure you got an objective lesson as well.

I have a real problem with politicians taking tax money and putting it into their church's money basket. Fill it with your own money if your cause is so damn good.

"so what your saying is that Palin should of visited her old church on her dime?"


Do you even have a dimmer switch?

Yeah, on her own dime.

That's how advocacy for religious causes goes. If you believe, then YOU put your dollars toward getting the word out.

The Government NEVER puts it's dollars out, as the GOVERNMENT has nothing to do with faith!

BTW: Since this thread is somewhat wayward, and perhaps I'm part of that...

I had the most interesting conversation with a couple of clients. Both of them are working on American citizenship. After a particularly long and productive day, we got into some Politics and Religion, and a long island or two!

Thought we would hit the bar and laugh at Palin. (she ended up being dull, and Biden hammered her solid)

I asked them why they wanted to become Americans, given all the crap that's gone on.

Both of them cited freedom of religion and freedom to do, build and generally run their lives as they saw fit as their primary reasons.

One of these people is a Canadian, the other was from a middle eastern nation. The Canadian enjoys the work and life freedom over what he sees in Canada.

The other is actually a Hindu, who grew up with the choice of living a lie in a Muslim nation, or hiding, or leaving for somewhere he could be just a Hindu.

This guy spoke to me at length about religion in all it's forms and the damage it can cause when large numbers of worshipers are supported by their government and the law. He believes the bad Muslims are really bad and are getting worse, largely because of ignorance and government support for the dogma.

I can't say I disagree.

Now, coming here offered a better lifestyle, but more important to him, was the simple freedom to live, work, play and be totally at ease telling others he is a Hindu.

Now I've never met a Hindu, and was fascinated! We talked about all the rules of Karma and such and it was just great.

Now here's the kicker! Both of these people are going to be excellent Americans. They appreciate what the founders did, know what they did and why it matters. Their early lives are clear object lessons that many here, born native to America, don't appreciate.

(that's you Broadway)

The Hindu has two wonderful daughters, who are looking to be Christians. It's their choice and he supports them and loves them for who they are. Because he is now living in a nation where he gets to see who is daughters are, be proud of that, share in that, and his family will grow stronger for that.

Just a little perspective for those who might not have had the chance to acquire it in that private school setting!

I dont know if Oregon still requires that Public School Teachers teach Creationism along with Science , but I do know in 1984 when I took Evolution @ Portland State the Proff was required by state law to teach Creationism for the last 2 weeks of the course. The Evolution course level , 300 , was primarily for Public School Teachers, which at the time I was considering.

I got an automatic one grade reduction when during that last 2 weeks of the Creationism portion , I opened up during a class discussion period, and posited to the Proff and the class. " You know,if you built the factory that uses natural selection and speciation to ultimately in time facilitate the creation of man, why couldnt Evolution and Creationism both be true? She said " OH Mr. Kennewickman , your ONE OF THOSE !

Boy did I regret that statement when the grades were handed out, as it reduced my overall GPA. And after that , the Proff. wouldnt give me the time of day during or after class.

The only teaching of creationism that should be done is the debunking of it.

A few weeks ago, I attended a presentation hosted by Americans United for Church State Separation on the subject of Creationism in Oregon public schools. The speaker was a science teacher from the Jefferson school district (just outside of Salem).

Said teacher had been approached by a student about allowing a guest speaker to come into her classroom. The guest speaker intended to present "alternative" ideas to those commonly accepted by the scientific community regarding evolution and geology. After hearing the proposed presentation, the teacher stated that she could not allow this in her classroom because it sounded like creationism, which is not part of the curriculum. She stated that it would be against the law for this presentation to be made in her classroom, and she could lose her job if she allowed this guest speaker to speak to her class during regular school hours. Unfortunately, some people in the school's administration, as well as a few school board members, are partial to the creationist viewpoint, and these people have been pressuring her to allow the guest speaker in her class, without regard to the Oregon Department of Education's policies.

What we have in Oregon are state science standards. Evolution is taught because it is a theory born of the scientific method, and exemplifies scientific thought. There are no state "intelligent design" standards, thus no teaching of Creationism.

Ok, that must have been different 25 years ago, because Teachers were being taught Creationism in the required Evolution 330 at the State University level as I indicated above.

>>There are no state "intelligent design" standards

check out these sites...

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

very much science...

>>Do you even have a dimmer switch?

On a mission from God and useing my full first ammendment rights.

There is nothing scientific about religion.

"On a mission from God"

Big thanks to all you folks who stood up for our Constitution and spoke out against a theocracy.

The arguments that the guest speaker would have used in his presentation are like those used by the Institute for Creation Research and Answers In Genesis. The two main strategies therein are to challenge the accepted scientific claim that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and to propose various mathematical arguments against the world and life being the result of natural processes. Unfortunately for the people who subscribe to these arguments, the Oregon Department of Education differs with them on the validity of these arguments.

On a mission from God

God doesn't send people out on missions. You're on a PERSONAL mission. I've some personal missions I'd like to do "on behalf of God" myself, but I'm not selfish enough to tell others how to behave.