Matthew, Your presentation of the intent isn't actually different than mine, it's just a matter of granularity. The whole King James thing, Oliver Cromwell, the Pilgrims, and the whole thing are all historical influences. But my statement is completely in line with yours in that the Constitution is intended to prevent the state telling people they have to worship a particular state religion. As you've said, that doesn't and can't prevent people, even office holders, from having their own religion or no religion. I never said it did. I think you and I are in complete agreement on that.
The question in hand though comes up when the judge said that no other religions were allowed to be presented. At that point, the judge as a person who's authority is derived from the State, has now explicitly prohibited the exercising of other religions and explicitly established Christianity as the only official religion of the State. That's where the problem lies. I have no problem with the man personally acknowledging the 10 Commandments as a source of moral guidance. I have a problem when the man says personally that other religions are rubbish. I have a problem when the Judge, with the weight of law, puts one religion above all others, and by extension persecutes those of different beliefs. -Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:56 AM Subject: Re: 10 commandments > 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
