Opinons Please--Church-State division?

by patio34 44 Replies latest social current

• 

  Elsewhere

  By implementing a Chaplin, congress is not making an establishment of A religion, they are making an establishment of religion. Establishing a religious activity (Chaplin services) is making an establishment of religion.

  I notice some of you think I am talking about freedom FROM religion. I have not made this statement. I am simply saying that a person cannot enjoy true free e xercise of religion if the state is mandating religion. When the state stays neutral in religious matters, everyone is ensured the right to free exercise of religion. By implementing a Chaplin, congress is breaking that neutrality.

  Edited by - Elsewhere on 1 September 2002 18:39:57
• 

  Yerusalyim

  By having a Chaplain, whom the congress themselves pick, the Congressmen are ensuring their own free exercise. Because of their unique positions and situations having a chaplain available is essential in their free exercise. This has already been challenged in the court (as well as the Military having Chaplains) and it lost. Having a Chaplain in no way ESTABLISHES a religion. The Congress is free to select a Chaplain from any religion they choose, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim, or Wiccan.

  Edited by - Yerusalyim on 1 September 2002 18:46:27
• 

  Farkel

  Yeru,

  : The Congress is free to select a Chaplain from any religion they choose, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim, or Wiccan.

  They never picked a dub, elders, CO, DO, Branch Manager, WT President, or even a GB member, though. I wonder why? Those guys personally speak for God, you know! Congress is so lame! What they need is a good dub Chaplain, one who can "encourage" people by telling them God will kill them if they don't buy and sell books! !

  Farkel
• 

  Elsewhere

  You are correct, it does not establish a religion, but it does make an establishment of religion. Who selects the Chaplin and by what means is irrelevant... they are still making an establishment of religion. Just because they have a tradition of violating the law and the courts tolerating it, does not make it right.

  BTW, it looks like it may go through the courts again.
• 

  expatbrit

  Yeru:

  If you are free to say "Under God" when reciting the pledge, that is a good thing. If someone else is free to omit those words, without others feeling that the pledge is somehow devalued or not as real a pledge; this is also a good thing. However, if there is coercion (for instance, if a school child feels pressured into using the words by Christian teachers or other students), then that person does not have freedom from religion.

  If freedom from religion doesn't exist, then does that mean that everyone in the United States must be religious? Is that a mark of a free society?

  The Declaration of Independence is an historical document. Removing references to the creator would be rewriting history, a bad thing.

  Personally, I've never really understood putting "In God We Trust" on money. Seems to be devaluing the concept of God a bit.

  Basically, I think that the freedom from religion ends with my right not to have to (or be coerced to)practice or endorse religion. What others choose to do is up to them. While I agree with some of what Mr. Newdow says, I think his confrontational approach is akin to a zealous fundamentalist.

  Extrabrit

  Edited by - expatbrit on 1 September 2002 19:13:27
• 

  Elsewhere

  Well this thread just fizzled didn't it.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Elsewhere,

  Your understanding of this Establisment of a religion is not how the courts have historically viewed this. Like I said, this whole issue has been challenged in court and lost. Besides, your contention is groundless, hiring a chaplain does not make an establisment of a religion.

  There is no coercion to say Under God other than peer pressure, which is something all kids have to deal with on too many issues. This decision by the 9th Circuit will be over turned when it goes to the Bench.
• 

  Farkel

  : Personally, I've never really understood putting "In God We Trust" on money. Seems to be devaluing the concept of God a bit.

  Obviously, you've never read the collective works of Charles T. Russell on God and Watchtower money!

  Farkel
• 

  Elsewhere

  Here is the Supreme Court's oppinion on the matter:

  The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church, and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality.

  - Justice Clark, June 17, 1963

  Again... the key point is neutrality. If congress hires a Chaplin to render religious services, then the neutrality is lost because they have made an establishment of religion (not a religion).

  Besides, your contention is groundless, hiring a chaplain does not make an establisment of a religion

  As I said before... I agree with you on this matt er... hiring a chaplain does not make an establisment of a religion... however hireing a Chaplin does make an establishment of religion. There is a difference between the two.

  (edited to correct typo's)

  Edited by - Elsewhere on 1 September 2002 21:47:28
• 

  Elsewhere

  Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800:

  "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and engrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."