Subject:
|
Re: Separation of Church and State
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:36:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
285 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2977382.stm
> >
> > In which granite tablets inscribed with the 10 commandments were removed from
> > school property.
> >
> > Is this separation or liberalism run amok?
>
> From the article, I'm not 100% sure, but I interpret the issue to have
> occurred on the grounds of two public schools. Am I correct?
>
> If so, then here's my answer:
>
> It's not liberalism at all; it is an objective and correct reading of the
> First Amendment of the Constitution.
> Would these "kneeling and praying" protestors be equally supportive of a huge
> sculpture of the Buddha or Brahma on school grounds? If not, then they must
> acknowledge that they are supporting only the endorsement of their own religious
> views by a public institution. But even if they would be as supportive of such
> a mural, then they'd still be wrong, because it would still be a violation of
> the First Amendment.
Where I agree about the 'separation of church and state' means that 'official
school sanctioned religious prayer' is a no-no, people getting together and
praying to their deity, unofficial like and not school supported at all is quite
fine.
> > If, say, I was a teacher at this school, and I had a card with the 10
> > commandments on my desk, is that violating C & S?
>
> Yes.
And here I disagree--If I'm a teacher, and it's my desk, I should have the
ability to 'decorate' my desk as I see fit, as long as the decorations fall into
the lines of decorum and such. Is like if I have a cross on a necklace--neither
are officially school sanctioned so the C & S do not apply.
>
> > If a child wants to do for her artwork presentation, a pic of Moses hefting
> > the stone tablets down from the mountain, would that violate the C & S?
>
> No, unless the child's artwork presentation was included in some kind of
> school-sponsored or school-endorsed exhibit (even if that exhibit is on or
> within school property).
Again I would have to disagree--if the art teacher asks in class for his or her
students to make a portrait of their favourite hero, or their fav. scene from a
book, and little Julie paints Jesus, et al, in the boat during the storm--the
artwork is 'officially' requested by the teacher for the 'official' art class,
but telling Julie that her artwork can't be shown in the hallway like all the
other kids in her class, just because of the C & S issue is taking the letter of
the law over the spirit of the law.
Anyway, that's my take.
> In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that this is the weakest
> part of my argument. Frank has written a somewhat better addressing of it, but
> I don't entirely agree with his conclusion. In any case, I stand by my
> assertion, but I don't have a rock-solid defense of it. I'll work on it...
>
> > If a wealthy member of the community donated these tablets to the school
> > years ago and the school accepts, is that violating? (not stated in the
> > article, but just a hypothetical)
>
> Yes. It doesn't really matter how long ago the tablets were received, so
> there's no "grandfather clause" to cite; the school was in violation of the
> Constitution the moment it accepted the tablets (or posted the picture of Noah's
> Ark, or hosted an Easter Pageant, etc..)
Or Christmas show. Get rid of the trees, presents, et al, for they all have
some sort of Christianity intertwined somewhere along the line--whether pagan
rituals were adopted by Christians, or whatever--they're pretty much stuck
together now.
And no Halloween parties for the same reasons.
>
> > And, as the article shows us, does the wants of the individual outweigh the
> > wants of the community in general?
>
> It might be more accurately described as follows: some members of the local
> community are requiring the school to adhere to the US Constitution, while a
> greater number of other members of the community is asserting that the school
> should be able to display a religious monument on public property. The number
> of people on each side of the is irrelevant.
>
> Sadly, Ms. Fulton has reported the facts exactly backward:
This I agree with.
> > "I think our rights are being taken away, just for the sake of one person,"
> > said Sharon Fulton, wife of Reverend Phil Fulton, one of those arrested.
>
> It is erroneous of her to claim that the police, in enforcing the judge's
> correct ruling that the monument was a violation of the First Amendment, are
> somehow causing her rights to be "taken away." She is claiming, in effect, that
> she [and those of similar view in this case] have the right to State endorsement
> of their religion, and that is flatly and obviously incorrect.
> If this were a private school, or if the monument had been forcibly removed
> from private property by judicial order, then Ms. Fulton would be absolutely
> correct in her objection, and I would support her claim 100%.
>
> By the way, Frank also makes an excellent point about the presence of the Ten
> Commandments in or near a courtroom or courthouse, and he is exactly correct to
> cite the implication that jurors are thereby encouraged to include the Decalogue
> (or, by extension, the bible) in their deliberation. The bible is absolutely
> not a document of secular law, whereas the courthouse is absolutely an
> institution of secular law.
> Some have argued that the Ten Commandments should be allowed, either because
> they are "historical examples of law" or are "the basis for our legal system."
> Both assertions are incorrect.
Again agree totally--just starting a debate that can be debatable :)
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Separation of Church and State
|
| (...) Absolutely! And if someone tries to prevent those people from praying, I'll be first in line to defend their right to pray as they choose. The right to worship is Constitutionally protected, even on school property (provided that it's not done (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Separation of Church and State
|
| (...) From the article, I'm not 100% sure, but I interpret the issue to have occurred on the grounds of two public schools. Am I correct? If so, then here's my answer: It's not liberalism at all; it is an objective and correct reading of the First (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
