Actually, the historical intentions behind the first amendment were not to prevent religion from having a place in government, it was to prevent government interference with religion, meaning that the government cannot tell Catholics to pray for a balanced budget after a hymn to Jesus Christ or make the President of the US the head of the Buddist nation. This came from historical interferance into the Catholic church by the king of England, who established his own brand of religion (Anglican, Episcopal in the US) and himself as its leader.
Even the Constitution refers to the Lord in Article 7 of the Constitution. In Article 6, it makes reference to the fact that Officers named in the Constitution must be bound by an oath to uphold it, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the Unitest States." Notice carefully the wording of that section - it says that no religious test is required, meaning that it is optional for the office holder. This gives the President the right to lay his hand on the Bible when affirming his oath - which would be a violation of the First amendment under in your opinion. - Matthew Small ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:31 AM Subject: Re: 10 commandments > But you yourself have pointed out Article 10. This is one of those few cases > which the States are required to follow suit with the Federal laws. And so > by extension, a State Religion is not allowed at the state level any more > than at the Federal level. > > You are right that there is not explicit wording to separate the church and > state. However, I'm sure you know the historical intentions behind it. It > was to ensure BOTH religious freedom and prevent persecution, AND to prevent > an official religion promoted by the government. > > The Alabama situation is a cut and dried case. Displaying the commandments > wasn't the problem. ONLY displaying the Christian commandments was. > > -Kevin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Heald, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:16 AM > Subject: RE: 10 commandments > > > > Up to the state at this point I would say. None on federal ground though. > > > > Tim > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:12 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: 10 commandments > > > > > > So should there be a free exercise of any religion on state or federal > > property? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:02 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: 10 commandments > > > > > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or > > prohibiting the free exercise thereof > > > > God > > A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and > > ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in > > monotheistic religions. > > The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. > > A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by > a > > people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or > > reality. > > An image of a supernatural being; an idol. > > One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. > > A very handsome man. > > A powerful ruler or despot > > > > So how does that word establish a religion? If anything you separation > > folks are really violating the second half of that cause "prohibiting the > > free exercise thereof" > > > > Timothy Heald > > Information Systems Specialist > > Overseas Security Advisory Council > > U.S. Department of State > > 571.345.2235 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:20 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: 10 commandments > > > > > > At 08:12 AM 8/28/2003 -0500, you wrote: > > >There IS NO SEPARATION CLAUSE! > > > > > > >Constitutional Amendments 1-10: The Bill of Rights > > > > > >Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to > > >the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified > > >December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights." > > > > > >Amendment I > > > > > >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. > > > > By including the phrase under god to the pledge of Allegience, by an act > of > > Congress, this apprears to violate the separation clause in Amendment 1 of > > the Constitution. > > > > larry > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
