# Ill. Moment-Of-Silence Law Ruled Unconstitutional



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2009)

* Ill. Moment-Of-Silence Law Ruled Unconstitutional  *





*Author: *The Associated Press    *Source: *The First Amendment Center 




*Title: *ILL. MOMENT-OF-SILENCE LAW RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL 

A federal judge has ruled that a state law requiring a moment of silence in public schools across Illinois is unconstitutional, saying it crosses the line separating church and state.

"The statute is a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate religion," U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman said in his ruling yesterday.

The ruling came in a lawsuit designed to bar schools from enforcing the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. It was filed by talk-show host Rob Sherman, an outspoken atheist, and his daughter, Dawn, a high school student.

Gettleman's ruling was not a surprise. He had already ruled in favor of Sherman in two previous decisions.   [*Read Full Story*]


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2009)

For some comments on this : http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=20337

I agree with the judge.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 28, 2009)

Good news! It's about time!


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 29, 2009)

I was joing to "knee jerk" a reply about this one until I read about the part where the teacher was requird to teach about prayer. With that bit, I have to agree with the judge.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 29, 2009)




----------



## jetboatdeath (Jan 29, 2009)

Once again it's Minotriy rule in the good ol USA.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2009)

Nevermind the fact that Separation of Church and State is a MYTH that is only supported by writings outside the constitution, the same kind that are REJECTED when the issue of the Second Amendment come up as evidence to support the right to bear arms. 

I have no problem with the idea that the Founding Fathers MEANT to have Separation, when the people pushing for it accept they also MEANT I have the right to carry my .45


----------



## jarrod (Jan 30, 2009)

people should be free to practice their religion as they see fit.  but who the hell are these people who want government employees (i.e., teachers) instructing their kids about prayer?  i would think you'd want to do that yourself.  

there's a church down the street from me that offers a "real science" class for kids.  who sends their kids to learn science at church?

cryozombie, for what it's worth i support separation of church & state as well as the 2nd amendment.

jf


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2009)

> cryozombie, for what it's worth i support separation of church & state as well as the 2nd amendment.



Thats cool.  My reference is pretty specific to people who KNOW that their isn't a Seperation of Church and State, but then they Cite documents like the Federalist Papers to show that it was intended... but then swear up and down that the right to bear arms is not for the people but for the militia, and when you cite documents like the Federalist Papers to show that it was intended for the people, they say "well it's not in the Document tho"

It was intended for the "Cake and Eat it too" Crowd.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2009)

And on that note... if this Ruling is Correct, and this Separation exists...

Is it ok to tell some kid he can't wear a hat in school but allow an Indian girl to wear her hijab? (I believe that is the term, perhaps I am wrong) Or a that a government worker can't carry a knife but a Sikh woman can have a Neck-knife because it's mandated by her order?

Lets face it... if we are going to be religious intolerant, because of this separation, it has to happen ACROSS THE BOARD, or be thrown out.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 30, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> And on that note... if this Ruling is Correct, and this Separation exists...
> 
> Is it ok to tell some kid he can't wear a hat in school but allow an Indian girl to wear her hijab? (I believe that is the term, perhaps I am wrong) Or a that a government worker can't carry a knife but a Sikh woman can have a Neck-knife because it's mandated by her order?
> 
> Lets face it... if we are going to be religious intolerant, because of this separation, it has to happen ACROSS THE BOARD, or be thrown out.


 
Absolutely agreed.  The "seperation of church and state" was that there was not a "state church" that everyone had to pay for and adhere to.

Too many times in this country we use the "church and state" clause, but then allow people from other religions to practice what they want.  Aethism IS a form of religious belief, and it is enforced on a large scale all the time. Here is the full statute and NO WHERE does it say or state that teachers are required to teach students about prayer, in fact, it says the opposite.


> (105 ILCS 20/0.01) (from Ch. 122, par. 770)
> Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.
> (Source: P.A. 92&#8209;832, eff. 1&#8209;1&#8209;03.)
> http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/010500200K0.01.htm
> ...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jan 30, 2009)

> Aethism IS a form of religious belief, and it is enforced on a large scale all the time


 
Where is atheism enforced?


----------



## jarrod (Jan 30, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> And on that note... if this Ruling is Correct, and this Separation exists...
> 
> Is it ok to tell some kid he can't wear a hat in school but allow an Indian girl to wear her hijab? (I believe that is the term, perhaps I am wrong) Or a that a government worker can't carry a knife but a Sikh woman can have a Neck-knife because it's mandated by her order?
> 
> Lets face it... if we are going to be religious intolerant, because of this separation, it has to happen ACROSS THE BOARD, or be thrown out.


 
i understood it wasn't directed at me, i just wanted you to know that we're out there 

fwiw, i do believe that seperation of chuch & state is the best policy.  

i agree that religions have to be treated the same across the board.  i really don't care if someone wants to wear a religious symbol or express their religion anyway they choose so long as it doesn't hurt anybody.  for instance letting a person wear religious headgear doesn't bother me.  letting someone carry a knife where no one else is allowed one is an issue, because that isn't a rule it's a law.  



punisher73 said:


> Absolutely agreed. The "seperation of church and state" was that there was not a "state church" that everyone had to pay for and adhere to.
> 
> Too many times in this country we use the "church and state" clause, but then allow people from other religions to practice what they want. Aethism IS a form of religious belief, and it is enforced on a large scale all the time. Here is the full statute and NO WHERE does it say or state that teachers are required to teach students about prayer, in fact, it says the opposite.


 
technically, atheism is not a religion but a philosophy.  & while i sympathize with your feelings i don't think it's enforced on a large scale, nor can it be done.  china has been trying to do this for a while & they haven't had much luck.  meanwhile over here every president we've had has professed christianity as have the vast majority of leaders & politicians.  

when i was a christian, i thought the rest of the world was a bunch of pushy atheists.  when i was agnostic, i thought the whole world was a bunch of pushy religious nuts.  it's easy to see legislation about religion that you don't agree with & think that your side is persecuted, whichever side you're on.

jf


----------



## jarrod (Jan 30, 2009)

but really at the heart of this issue, for me at least, is kids can pray wherever they want.  they can pray while they walk down the halls, they can pray while they're not listening to the teacher, they can pray in the bathroom, whatever.  we don't send kids to school to observe moments of silence, we send them for an education.  

i like to meditate in silence.  but since when is it a school's job to provide me with silence?

jf


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 30, 2009)

jarrod said:


> technically, atheism is not a religion but a philosophy.



It's neither.  Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).  That's all.  Anything else you might add is not common to all atheists.  Some atheists are hardcore skeptics.  Some atheists believe in ghosts and UFOs.  Some spin out their beliefs into a philosophy, most just don't care.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 30, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> most just don't care.



Yup. I don't have a favourite religion any more than I have a favourite Australian rules football team. I'm not religious more than atheistic, I figure--I'm just not in the game. Others can do what they want.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 30, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> It's neither. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). That's all. Anything else you might add is not common to all atheists. Some atheists are hardcore skeptics. Some atheists believe in ghosts and UFOs. Some spin out their beliefs into a philosophy, most just don't care.


 
define "philosophy".

*philosophy* 
_Noun_
_pl_ *-phies* 
*1*. the academic study of knowledge, thought, and the meaning of life 
*2*. *the particular doctrines of a specific individual* or school relating to these issues: _the philosophy of John Locke_ 
*3*. *any system of beliefs or values* 
*4*. *a personal outlook or viewpoint* [Greek _philosophia_ love of wisdom] 

(bolds added)

jf


----------



## arnisador (Jan 30, 2009)

My personal disinterest in religion as an activity doesn't rise to the level of 'philosophy', though. I also don't enjoy cooking--is that a philosophy?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 30, 2009)

Oh come on now..we all know that religion, atheism and philosophy all have to do with views on reality, life, death and ethics and influence how people lead their lives...cooking does not.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2009)

arnisador said:


> My personal disinterest in religion as an activity doesn't rise to the level of 'philosophy', though. I also don't enjoy cooking--is that a philosophy?



Based on #4 yep.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 30, 2009)

arnisador said:


> My personal disinterest in religion as an activity doesn't rise to the level of 'philosophy', though. I also don't enjoy cooking--is that a philosophy?


 
actually that would depend on your reasons for cooking & any beliefs you have about it. but archangel nailed it, your atheism shapes & is shaped by your concept of the world around you & how you relate to it. 

philosophy in & of itself isn't "deep". we all have philosophies even if we don't examine them closely or think about them very much.

also, disinterest in religion as an activity doesn't qualify as atheism.  that's just ambivelence  .  atheism is the belief that there is no god.  a lot of folks confuse atheism with various forms of agnosticism.

jf


----------



## arnisador (Jan 30, 2009)

If I believed there was a Christian god planning on torturing me for all eternity, I'd be religious out of sheer self-interest. If I believed that Australian rules football was a fascinating sport, I'd follow it. I believe there is no god, as I believe there are no unicorns and no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That isn't a philosophy--even in the weaker sense--in and of itself, though it follows from a world-view that is based on evaluating evidence and that could be construed as a personal philosophy (or just common sense).

The religious often assume that what is important to them is important to others, even if those others disagree with them. But to me religion is just one of many hobbies I don't indulge in.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 30, 2009)

arnisador said:


> If I believed there was a Christian god planning on torturing me for all eternity, I'd be religious out of sheer self-interest. If I believed that Australian rules football was a fascinating sport, I'd follow it. I believe there is no god, as I believe there are no unicorns and no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That isn't a philosophy--even in the weaker sense--in and of itself, *though it follows from a world-view that is based on evaluating evidence and that could be construed as a personal philosophy (or just common sense).*
> 
> The religious often assume that what is important to them is important to others, even if those others disagree with them. But to me religion is just one of many hobbies I don't indulge in.


 
that's called rationalism, & for better or worse it isn't all that common as far as common sense goes.

why all the resistance to atheism being called a philosophy?  it wasn't meant as any kind of put down.  

plus we're getting away from our original question of how atheism is forced on society.  

jf


----------



## tellner (Jan 30, 2009)

And even if you believed there was a God why would you assume it was the 21st century Xtain one? Why not Mumbo Jumbo God of the Congo and all the other gods of the Congo? Why not Inana or Quetzalcoatl or Frigga or Shango or Bishamon or Kwan Yin?

"A moment of silence" has always been about sneaking the Xtians' rites into the public schools and forcing it on innocent children. It started off with mandatory Xtian prayer. When they couldn't coerce  the innocent that way they went for "voluntary" Xtian prayer. When they couldn't get that they went for "spiritual meditation" and "a moment of silence". Every time that camel's nose has been slipped under the tent they've tried to cram in the whole humped beast.

I say kick that camel hard in the snout unless you want the rest of the herd in there. Let the Xtians guzzle their grape juice and munch their crackers. But we have to give equal time to every religion. Next up - Magister Peter Gilmore of the Church of Satan reading the Enochian Keys, followed by old-fashioned Pagan fertility rites, Sufi zikr, a big bowl of FSM pasta (Raaaamen!), all-night zazen, sacrificing a man to Odin Valfather, lighting the Sacred Fire of the Zoroastrians, Yezidi Devil Worship, possession by the Loa, smoking FROP with the Sub-genii and whatever else a team of deranged febrile over-caffeinated anthropologists can come up with. 

Anything else would be an "establishment of [some particular] religion".


----------



## Marginal (Jan 30, 2009)

jetboatdeath said:


> Once again it's Minotriy rule in the good ol USA.


Saved from the tyranny of the majority? Seems like something the founding fathers specifically intended.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Saved from the tyranny of the majority? Seems like something the founding fathers specifically intended.



I agree 100% Lets get Obama out of office since the Tyrranical Majority wanted him.

What's that?  It doesnt work that way?  Why, how Hypocritical of you.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 30, 2009)

lot's of hostility on this thread from normally friendly folks...


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2009)

Yeah Im sorry, Im ****ing cranky tonite.  Sorry Marginal.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 31, 2009)

jarrod said:


> why all the resistance to atheism being called a philosophy?  it wasn't meant as any kind of put down.



Well, choosing theism is a positive action, but atheism is less so. (Maybe it's different for Richard Dawkins.) Saying "I believe in X" is an affirmative statement but saying "Eh, I'm not sold on that" isn't a committed view. Why would atheism be a philosophy if a-unicornism isn't? I don't think atheists are saying "My bedrock belief is NO GOD" but I do think theists are saying "My bedrock belief is GOD EXISTS". What you don't believe doesn't strike me as a philosophy--a philosophy is what you do believe in. Theists see atheists in opposition to them and attribute to them equally strong but opposite feelings, it often seems; atheists--leaving aside the few activists suing people over school prayer and such--aren't actively not believing in god all day long.



tellner said:


> And even if you believed there was a God why would you assume it was the 21st century Xtain one? Why not Mumbo Jumbo God of the Congo and all the other gods of the Congo? Why not Inana or Quetzalcoatl or Frigga or Shango or Bishamon or Kwan Yin?


 
I'm offended that you left out Thor, heathen. I'll give you partial credit for Frigg(a), though.

I had this discussion with someone at work just yesterday. I prefer "not religious" to "atheist" in part because people often think that if I'm an theist that I've rejected their religion _specifically_--as though I independently rejected every single Lutheran synod in the U.S. on a case-by-case basis. (As my friend said, "The Hindu religions must have taken you forever.") I'm not against religion--I just don't care about it as a personal matter. As a social/historical phenomenon I do find it interesting, alongside all others, but it's not for me. But if it was for me, I can't imagine how I'd choose one religion out of the absurdly many available. The very multiplicity of religions argues against the possibility that any one of them is right, to my mind.



> "A moment of silence" has always been about sneaking the Xtians' rites into the public schools and forcing it on innocent children.



Agreed.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 31, 2009)

Yes, those damn Xtians insisting you have silence to indoctrinate you.



> An investigation by the San Diego Unified School District failed to substantiate the allegations. But critics continue to assail Carver for providing a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray. (Those who donât pray can read or write during that non-instructional time.)


 
Right Right.   15 Minutes of "Non-instructional time"  So what, I ask, makes A moment of Silence Wrong and Evil and "Indoctrinating", but "a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray" perfectly acceptable?

Oh, but how dare I speak out against those poor persecuted muslims right?


----------



## jarrod (Jan 31, 2009)

arnisador what you're describing is called implicit atheism & still falls under philosophy.  i think we're just disagreeing about what constitutes philosophy.

15 minutes of non-instructional time is bogus too.

jf


----------



## arnisador (Jan 31, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i think we're just disagreeing about what constitutes philosophy.



Fair enough! I think I fall under weak than implicit atheism, as the latter refers to those who have not even been informed about the possibility of such a being existing.

"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. Richard Dawkins"​


> 15 minutes of non-instructional time is bogus too.



But free time that could be used for any purpose at all is better than "a moment of silent [insert near-synonym for prayer here]", I'd say.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 31, 2009)

arnisador said:


> But free time that could be used for any purpose at all is better than "a moment of silent [insert near-synonym for prayer here]", I'd say.


 
But since the only reason it's being given in the first place is to allow Prayer in school for Musims, it's Hypocritical and Prejudiced against Christians, I'd say.

But that's ok.  It's ok to call me a Cracker too.  And make stereotypes about men as well.  After all It's only racisim if the White man does it right?  It's only persecution if its not a Christian its being done to, and its only sexism if it effects women.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 31, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> But since the only reason it's being given in the first place is to allow Prayer in school for Musims, it's Hypocritical and Prejudiced against Christians, I'd say.
> 
> But that's ok. It's ok to call me a Cracker too. And make stereotypes about men as well. After all It's only racisim if the White man does it right? It's only persecution if its not a Christian its being done to, and its only sexism if it effects women.


 
people in general need to learn that the world doesn't revolve around them or their beliefs.  i would be pissed off if my kid missed out on 15 minutes of instruction so one person in the class could pray.  it is a slippery slope of concession that i don't want to go down.

if you are supposed to pray at certain times of day, & you live in a society that doesn't stop at those times, you have to either modify how you worship, or expect to miss out on what's going on at that time.  it has nothing to do with religious persecution, it's just practical.  when you go to mexico, you should expect everything to be closed for a couple hours for seista.  & when you go to class, you SHOULD expect instruction.

jf


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 5, 2009)

I had a long e-mail conversation with this guy... 
He could not explain how it was unconstitutional so he just got mean and quit responding...

*To:* rob@robsherman.com 
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2009 9:49 PM
*Subject:* Quick Question

Dont  you think forcing your atheist views on the state is the same as the Christians forcing them on us as well?

*To:* Hannah, Brian
*Subject:* Re: Quick Question
Thanks for writing.

In what way do you believe that I am forcing atheist views on the state?  Nobody should do that.  Let me know so that I have an opportunity to respond to anything that I feel is a misunderstanding on your part.

My intention is to demand and require that the state remain scrupulously neutral about matters of faith.  Many people equate neutrality about religion with hostility against religion.

Supporting the revocation of anti-atheist laws, such as Article 19, Section 1, of the Arkansas Constitution 

http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/ar-constitution/arcart19/arcart19-1.htm

is not forcing my atheist views on the state.  It merely demands that atheists are afforded equal protections under the law.

I look forward to your reply.

Rob Sherman 

*To:* Rob Sherman 
*Sent:* Saturday, January 31, 2009 2:46 PM
*Subject:* RE: Quick Question

That arkansas law is pretty goofie. I was more refering to the case you just won about the moment of silence.
No were in the law did it say you had to pray, in fact it said you could not. 
105 ILCS 20/0.01) (from Ch. 122, par. 770)
Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.
(Source: P.A. 92&#8209;832, eff. 1&#8209;1&#8209;03.)

(105 ILCS 20/1) (from Ch. 122, par. 771)
Sec. 1. In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.
(Source: P.A. 95&#8209;680, eff. 10&#8209;11&#8209;07.)


(105 ILCS 20/5)
Sec. 5. Student prayer. *In order that the right of every student to the free exercise of religion is guaranteed within the public schools and that each student has the freedom to not be subject to pressure from the State either to engage in or to refrain from religious observation on public school grounds*, students in the public schools may voluntarily engage in individually initiated, non&#8209;disruptive prayer that, consistent with the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions, is not sponsored, promoted, or endorsed in any manner by the school or any school employee.
(Source: P.A. 92&#8209;832, eff. 1&#8209;1&#8209;03.) 

Nevermind the fact that Separation of Church and State is a MYTH that is only supported by writings outside the constitution.

*To:* Hannah, Brian
*Subject:* Re: Quick Question

Precisely.  It's the only law in the world (The Act) where the second paragraph (Section 5, below, with the red font) prohibits what the first paragraph requires.  I challenged the constitutionality of the first paragraph (Section 1) only, because it clearly violated the constitutional requirement identified in the last sixteen words of Section 5.

Looking forward to your reply on that one.

Rob Sherman

*To:* Rob Sherman 
*Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2009 2:33 PM
*Subject:* RE: Quick Question

But you still seem to think that the separation of church and state is in the constitution.

*To:* Hannah, Brian
*Subject:* Re: Quick Question

What I cite is Article I, Section 3 http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm and
Article X, Section 3 http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm
of the Illinois Constitution.  Take a look at those and let me know what you think.

Are you in Illinois?  If not, where are you?

Rob Sherman

*To:* Rob Sherman 
*Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2009 6:29 PM
*Subject:* RE: Quick Question

Yes I am in Illinois, but nothing in Article1 Section 3 states anything about the separation of church and state. If you can show or explain to me were that is stated it would be of great help, again maybe it is a loop hole but I did notice that it said ANY religion I know atheists do not consider their faith, for lack of better word a religion but that in itself offers them no more rights than any other person in the state of Illinois.
And thanks for the correspondence it is more than I expected.
Brian

*To:* Hannah, Brian
*Subject:* Re: Quick Question

Separation of church and state is a mis-nomer.  It should have always been described as a separation between religion and government.

RS

*To:* Rob Sherman 
*Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2009 6:44 PM
*Subject:* RE: Quick Question

Agreed, but then what was the basis of your suite and the moment of silence?
And you have not shown were it is un-constitutional in either the state or national constitution.
Brian

Dawn and I respect the right of children to waste time praying, before school, after school or even during school.  What we objected to was a law that required Dawn to waste her time, doing nothing during important class time that I, as a taxpayer, was paying for and for which Dawn is required by truancy laws to be there, so that religious kids could waste time praying without being interrupted by lessons from the teacher.

The basis of the suit was that the purpose of the law was to advance religion, in violation of the Lemon Test (let me know if you don't know what that means), since the law was renamed the Student Prayer Act, the main option available to students was to pray during instructional time, the amendment to the law was co-sponsored by three members of the General Assembly who are clergy, and the chief sponsor told me, on a major television news show, that the purpose of the law was to be a suggestion, from the General Assembly to kids, that they should begin each day by praying.  That's hardly a secular purpose for a law, which the Lemon Test requires.

Rob Sherman

Wow your response sure took turn to a darker side of the conversation.  Again because you think it is a waste of time doesnt make it so. They way the law was written that was not the intent, now if the courts went on the fact  that the chief sponsors intent was to  suggest that kids pray, well may I suggest that the state send me all my taxes back from the last 16 years I have paid them.  How long do you think it will take them to get it back to me? 
The entire point of this is that this is America and it is MAJORITY rule, a couple of whiny people should not be able to dictate ANY law. Why not let the community decide  what is taught in the school? If a community says that they want prayer to start the day so be it. If you dont like it move out of the district.
But then that would be fair and well it seems as if you will have nothing to do with that. Its all about Rob Sherman and what fits his agenda.
Any reply? And as a side note if you are concerned your child falling to someone elses suggestions you may want to spend more time teaching her about morals than the court process.
Thanks 
Brian

He has not replied...


----------



## elder999 (Feb 5, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> But since the only reason it's being given in the first place is to allow Prayer in school for Musims, it's Hypocritical and Prejudiced against Christians, I'd say.
> 
> But that's ok. It's ok to call me a Cracker too. And make stereotypes about men as well. After all It's only racisim if the White man does it right? It's only persecution if its not a Christian its being done to, and its only sexism if it effects women.


 

When I was a Christian, I prayed in school. I prayed over my lunch, and I prayed, well, quite a few other times during the day. _No one ever knew._ We had that "moment of silence crap," I prayed then too, but I didn't need it.

I still pray at work-on government property. Not to "Jesus," either. No one knows, or needs to know-in fact, I'd bet that the biggest gripe I'd face about it would be that I wasn't "praying in Jesus' name."

And I've never called anyone "Cracker." :lol:


----------



## jarrod (Feb 5, 2009)

well jetboat, i gotta say i wouldn't have replied to you after your last email either.

one of the pitfalls of democracy is tyranny of the majority, which was brought up earlier but not really discussed.  yes, in a democracy the majority of the people get to decide what laws go on the books, etc, etc.  but that does not always make those things right.  at one time the majority of our nation supported slavery, theft of indian land, denying women's suffrage, as well as minority rights.  specifically, tyranny of the majority refers to when the majority of a democratic society choose to impose their will on the minority.  & that's exactly what this is; a religious contingent trying get needless accomodations for their beliefs through a government institution.  

jf


----------



## elder999 (Feb 5, 2009)

jarrod said:


> & that's exactly what this is; a religious contingent trying get needless accomodations for their beliefs through a government institution.
> 
> jf


 

Not to mention that they're _not_ the majority. They're just a *vocal* slice of the majority, if that.....


----------



## jarrod (Feb 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Not to mention that they're _not_ the majority. They're just a *vocal* slice of the majority, if that.....


 
that's true; you could say they are the whiners!

jf


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 5, 2009)

well jarrod I can see by your post that you would do the same as Sherman did back down and not reply, because you seem to not notice the jabs that he put in his post.
Let me quote a few...
"waste time praying"
"so that religious kids could waste time praying "

But i understand it's ok to bash on someone who you don't agree with and stick up for  the ones you do.
Just try to remember that it has two sides.
He is the one who brought up relegion, he is the one who wanted to take it to that level. He is the one who insulted me, but again I know you kind of missed that.

BUT the point is he could not show that it was Unconstitutional, so he had to take it to that level, thats cool I can do that as well, but when I do please don't "blame" me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 5, 2009)

No matter what they rule, there will always be prayer in school, before, during and right after exams are given.  And just before lunch, that the items provided will be edible. And by every nerd and geek just prior to any encounter with the jocks.

You don't need a mandated moment for that. You want to put aside a few minutes? ok, fine.  Call it HomeRoom and let me read if I want to, don't make me sit there and have the option of praying or sitting still staring straight ahead. I'll be praying, but not in a positive manner.


----------



## redantstyle (Feb 5, 2009)

> If a community says that they want prayer to start the day so be it. If you dont like it move out of the district


 
yeah right. 

i could care less who my neighbors decide to pray to, or not.   or how many of them there are.  no way in hell some local consensus is going to subject my kids to someone else's worldview.  

and i hate to break it to you, but to me, and many others,  prayer is indeed a 'waste of time'. 

if you think it is sacred, that's fine.  but dont try and push your agenda on others. 

go to mass, sing hosanas, and contemplate grace to your heart's desire, but keep it off my wave and dont think to subject my family to it.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 5, 2009)

If someone is going after the "moment of silence" because it just irks them that some kids choose to pray during it is one thing.

Having an issue with a school rule that mandates teachers teach about prayer during that moment is another.

Perhaps I would like to do a bit of non-religious meditation to focus my thoughts on the upcoming day....or oogle the girl I have a crush on.


----------



## tellner (Feb 5, 2009)

> There will be prayer in school as long as there's algebra


 
--Anon, Ibid and Op Cit

Prayer isn't the issue. The State throwing its considerable power and influence behind enforced prayer is the issue. When the participants are children and the prayer is led or enforced by teachers it's particularly tough. Protestations that it's "voluntary" are mere semantics. When it's a public group activity and participation requires that you go against what all your peers are doing there's a very strong coercive element. It takes more courage than most kids have, courage to be different, courage to follow their conscience even though it means going through the hell of ostracism and harrassment to walk out or refuse to participate.

Been there. Done that. The scars on the outside are gone. The ones on the inside are getting better.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 5, 2009)

No problem redant I agree with you but AGAIN this guy was going for the constitution and well he could not.. 
But it seems to be ok to teach the liberal agenda in schools.
The law should be the seperation of government and school...


----------



## jarrod (Feb 5, 2009)

jetboatdeath said:


> well jarrod I can see by your post that you would do the same as Sherman did back down and not reply, because you seem to not notice the jabs that he put in his post.
> Let me quote a few...
> "waste time praying"
> "so that religious kids could waste time praying "
> ...


 
this is kind of what i'm talking about.  you seem very emotional on this subject.  if i were corresponding with someone who became progressively emotional & obviously wasn't going to change his mind on the subject, i'd probably drop it.  i didn't direct any sort of personal attacks at you, & you think i'm blaming you & bashing you, which i'm not.  

i did in fact notice his jabs, & they were followed by your hooks & crosses.  huh, what would jesus do?

anyway, as i addressed in my previous post, even if it cannot be proven to be unconstitutional, that does not make it right.  

look, this isn't even about christians vs. atheists.  it's about freedom vs government involvement.  even if you are religious, why do you want the government telling your kids when to pray?  when schools are for education, why should we be paying teachers to stand around & moniter student silence?  there are no "moments of silence" in college or the work place.  

jf


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 5, 2009)

When I was in HS many moons ago we did the pledge of allegiance followed by a moment of silence... as I recall it was never explained what the moment was for.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 5, 2009)

besides, public prayer is against scripture:

matthew 6:506

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

jf


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 5, 2009)

Jarrod..
My issue is not with relegion it is with the constitution and people misusing it to advance their personal agenda. These are the same people who will use it for both sides of the fence. No one will tell my child to anything. 
And that is what the law said you have to do nothing. A moment of silence to me is what the teacher starts the day with,"hey kids take your seats and shutup" nothing more. How can silence be religious? And if it is is silence now bared from schools? 
Here in Illinois the state now famous for our politics, things are a bit on edge, our right are being faught for every day. No I don't think that this law was that big of a deal, the big deal for me was the way this guy attacked it saying it was Unconstitutional and offering no proof, and geting it stricken....
But thats just the way we do things here in Illinois and that's what has me so fired up...
This guy claimed that the teachers HAD to teach prayer nothing in the written law states that. If his kids teacher did she/he was wrong and deal with it on that level....


----------



## Marginal (Feb 5, 2009)

jetboatdeath said:


> No problem redant I agree with you but AGAIN this guy was going for the constitution and well he could not..
> But it seems to be ok to teach the liberal agenda in schools.
> The law should be the seperation of government and school...


If it's not religious, why are only Christians clamoring for laws like this? Why is getting "secular" prayer periods into school so incredibly important?


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 5, 2009)

Marginal
Read the law. 


> If it's not religious, why are only Christians clamoring for laws like this?


 
It is not important, and beleive me in a liberal state like Illinois for this to pass it had to written in a way that would favor no religion and it was. And it did pass. 

Sherman claimed the law said teachers had to teach prayer, again the law never stated this in fact it made it ileagle to do so.... 

He also claimed it was Unconstitutional and could not show me that it was either on the state or federal level..

that is all....


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 5, 2009)

Think about it this way maybe it will help to explain my stance...

This has now been ruled Unconstitutional in the state of Illinois.
What if another case like this or any other case for that matter go before SCOUTS. They use the case from Illinois to get the law overturned.

The constitution has now been re-written on a case that was not Unconstitutional in the first place..

That is not how the constituion should be re-written is it?


----------



## Marginal (Feb 5, 2009)

jetboatdeath said:


> Marginal
> Read the law.
> 
> 
> It is not important, and beleive me in a liberal state like Illinois for this to pass it had to written in a way that would favor no religion and it was. And it did pass.


It favors the dominant religion of the area by default. Christian groups know this, so they constantly lobby for laws like this to be passed. If they thought for a second that most kids would be sitting around contemplating Buddha, then they're raise a public stink equal to your atheist friend.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> And I've never called anyone "Cracker." :lol:



That's *our *word.


----------



## redantstyle (Feb 5, 2009)

> No problem redant I agree with you but AGAIN this guy was going for the constitution and well he could not..
> But it seems to be ok to teach the liberal agenda in schools.
> The law should be the seperation of government and school...


 
my apologies if i took you out of context, i didn't read the exchange thoroughly, and just picked up on that particular remark.

the coercive element , that the more eloquent here have touched on,  was what i was responding to. 

and yes, i agree that political agendas are also a matter of 'home schooling' and dont belong in the classroom.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 5, 2009)

I think it should be illegal for teachers to talk about any politically sensitive issues...global warming, evolution, the evils of republicans and Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc. etc. 

If they get so offended over religion why should we accept indoctrination?


----------



## Marginal (Feb 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think it should be illegal for teachers to talk about any politically sensitive issues...global warming, evolution, the evils of republicans and Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> If they get so offended over religion why should we accept indoctrination?


Any time a teacher is reported making such comments, there's tons of public pressure to punish and/or fire the teacher in question. 

Well, except for global warming and evolution. Hard to avoid teaching reality.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 5, 2009)

> Any time a teacher is reported making such comments, there's tons of public pressure to punish and/or fire the teacher in question


 
Oh PLLLLLLEEEAAAASSSEEEE.
 You must give me examples...


----------



## Marginal (Feb 6, 2009)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11648765/

Even thought it's supposed to be unpossible, there you go.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> And on that note... if this Ruling is Correct, and this Separation exists...
> 
> Is it ok to tell some kid he can't wear a hat in school but allow an Indian girl to wear her hijab? (I believe that is the term, perhaps I am wrong) Or a that a government worker can't carry a knife but a Sikh woman can have a Neck-knife because it's mandated by her order?
> 
> Lets face it... if we are going to be religious intolerant, because of this separation, it has to happen ACROSS THE BOARD, or be thrown out.


 
Think you're a bit confused there. Muslim women wear the scarves not Indian women per se. There are of course Indian Muslims but the majority are Hindu, Christian or Buddhist.  
Sikhs http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/customs/fiveks.shtml


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 6, 2009)

Marginal said:


> If it's not religious, why are only Christians clamoring for laws like this? Why is getting "secular" prayer periods into school so incredibly important?



Last Time I checked, Muslims weren't Christian.  My question is WHY is it being shut down for Christians but enforced as a right for Muslims?

Oh yes, because sticking up for those poor oppressed Muslims is the flavor of the day along with Christian bashing from people with marginal intelligence at best who wouldn't understand hypocrisy if it hit them over the head with a Koran.


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Feb 6, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Last Time I checked, Muslims weren't Christian.  My question is WHY is it being shut down for Christians but enforced as a right for Muslims?
> 
> Oh yes, because sticking up for those poor oppressed Muslims is the flavor of the day along with Christian bashing from people with marginal intelligence at best who wouldn't understand hypocrisy if it hit them over the head with a Koran.



Hi, I'm new in this thread. I think you missed the point here. No one says that everyone has to pray to mecca, but those who's faith dictates it, can. No one is saying Christians can't pray, but those that need to, can. However what they are saying it's unlawful to "force" everyone to.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2009)

I think one reason that Muslims want rights to say their prayers is that their religion differs from Christianity in that they are obliged to pray at specific times of the day whereas Christians don't. I imagine they want to be able to stop work/school/college whatever at these times without being penalised. In British workplaces and schools they just go off for the short time it takes to a separate room say their prayers and then resume work. It doesn't inconvenience anyone. No Muslims here have demanded everyone has to do it. I'm sure any other religion that has obligations to do things at certain times have equal rights, I just don't know of any Christian rites or prayers that are said to a timetable, if they were I'm sure they'd have equal rights to excuse themselves.
Smokers here have the same right, to go off and have a puff of the old cancer sticks.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 6, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Last Time I checked, Muslims weren't Christian. My question is WHY is it being shut down for Christians but enforced as a right for Muslims?


 
But it's not that way at all.

What's being shut down is an _enforced_ moment of _required_ participation. Of course, those who don't pray at all are obligated to just stand there. I say "stand" since it usually occurred after that other obligatory moment of prayer, the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, when I was in school. 

No one is saying that kids who want to pray _can't_-they're just saying that you can't make 'em. What's enforced for Muslims is the observation of their Constitutional religious rights-and religious obligations: they have to pray in the direction of Mecca 5 times a day-while this could be disruptive in a public school environment, it's also something that must, by law, be accomodated-that doesn't mean that the other students have to participate in it as well, unlike the enforced moment of silence.

Like I said, I prayed all the time in school -though I never did ask for God's help on an exam-that's what God made  _work_ for :lol: . 

One has to wonder, though, about some of the odder places of conflict with school requirements and religious requirements....think I'll take a look-the Sikh kirpan issue comes to mind-I think that particular obligation would be in direct conflict with a lot of school's "zero tolerance" for weapons, what with kids being suspended for bringing in plastic knives for their lunch and all....:lfao:

Is it just me, or is the country becoming an open air insane asylum???!!:lfao: (do we have a straight-jacketed smiley?)


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 6, 2009)

During the winter, I take a break during the late afternoon for afternoon prayer. I also leave early on Fridays to make it home before sundown. I won't work on Saturdays. These times are mandated. Same thing for Muslim prayers. 

AAMOF, i used to work with a devout Muslim, and we would take off together in the afternoon to pray. It was an interesting sight...


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 6, 2009)

If we are going to separate "Church and State" entirely...it should be across the board. No exceptions.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> think I'll take a look-the Sikh kirpan issue comes to mind-I think that particular obligation would be in direct conflict with a lot of school's "zero tolerance" for weapons, what with kids being suspended for bringing in plastic knives for their lunch and all....:lfao:


 

We had that case in BC some years ago. It was settled by allowing the student to wear a short, rounded dull blade , wrapped in a cloth, worn under his clothing. Essentially, a useless weapon that is if not impossible, at least impractical to get to. It's a reasonable accomodation. And let's ace it, the requirement for Sikhs is a full sword, anything after that is compromise.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 6, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If we are going to separate "Church and State" entirely...it should be across the board. No exceptions.


 
What does that mean, exactly though?

It means freedom of religion and _freedom *from* religion._

It means you can't be forced to participate in anything, but that people are free to participate as they wish and need to, when they wish and need to, and pretty much _where they wish and need to_.

It also means that such participation shouldn't be disruptive-in the case of the Muslim obligation to pray, they should be permitted to excuse themselves from class and go someplace quiet to make their obligation-the library, perhaps, or outside when the weather permits. 

I don't see any conflict at all between permitting a person to practice their religious obligations, and not mandating a specific religious requirement, which is what the "moment of silence" was. There was a time when many  U.S. public schools began the day with a prayer or Bible reading, and it wasn't clearly decided until the early sixties that school-sponsored prayer was _state_ sponsored prayer, and therefore, unconstitutional. This was the advent of the "moment of silence," and it was and is an attempt to begin the day with prayer, or at least a state-sponsored moment of acknowledgement. Again, not neccessary-while I _did_ pray during the moment of silence, I also prayed at lunch, and a few other times-no one knew, and I certainly didn't need to be provided a special time to share with everyone else......


----------



## Marginal (Feb 6, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Last Time I checked, Muslims weren't Christian.  My question is WHY is it being shut down for Christians but enforced as a right for Muslims?


Christians, the brutally oppressed majority. 



> Oh yes, because sticking up for those poor oppressed Muslims is the flavor of the day along with Christian bashing from people with marginal intelligence at best who wouldn't understand hypocrisy if it hit them over the head with a Koran.


Zing!


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 6, 2009)

Most people are projecting what _THEY _believe a "moment of silence" to be.  Read the law as it was written....period.  The law was unconstitutional because it claimed the teachers were required to teach prayer.  This is false.  The law stated that there was a moment of silence for kids to contemplate their day or pray or whatever they wanted to do.  It did not say you had to do this with eyes closed or couldn't look at your day planner or syllabus and look at what you had to do.

My statement about "atheism" being enforced is because almost every case I can think of when it comes to religion vs. gov't and school is started by an atheist.  The courts have "ruled" that atheism is a religion already.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

I understand the "anti-religion" stance that many atheists will state.  Such things as saying if "atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color".  I am only calling it that as it pertains to the topic that courts have ruled that as a "religion" atheism needs to be protected.

The constitution never said that church and state must be seperate.  In the first amendmant it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".  This again only prohibits a "state run church" like England had.  I'm surprised that people tend to ignore how much "religion" is on the federal buildings and monuments in DC (Look into the Washington Monument and the many Bible verses engraved).


----------



## elder999 (Feb 6, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> I'm surprised that people tend to ignore how much "religion" is on the federal buildings and monuments in DC (Look into the Washington Monument and the many Bible verses engraved).


 
It's questionable how much "religion" is on federal buildings and monuments in DC, upon closer examination. And, in fact, there are *no Bible verses on the Washington Monument.* There are inscriptions on the monument related to its construction and history-mechanics, architects, dedication dates, etc. on each side. There is a weird Welsh inscription on the thing that has no religious meaning whatsoever, and it's something of  a mystery as to why it's there and where it came from, and the capstone bears the inscription _Laus Deo_, or "praise God."

Of course, it's 550 ft. up in the air, where, presumably, no one but God could see it when it was constructed. :lfao:


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 6, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> Most people are projecting what _THEY _believe a "moment of silence" to be. Read the law as it was written....period. The law was unconstitutional because it claimed the teachers were required to teach prayer. This is false. The law stated that there was a moment of silence for kids to contemplate their day or pray or whatever they wanted to do. It did not say you had to do this with eyes closed or couldn't look at your day planner or syllabus and look at what you had to do.


 
People believe that because those laws are always pushed by Xtians. If atheists started to demand moments of silence to 'contemplate the day', then the populace would be more inclined to take that at face value.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 6, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> The constitution never said that church and state must be seperate.  In the first amendmant it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".  This again only prohibits a "state run church" like England had.  I'm surprised that people tend to ignore how much "religion" is on the federal buildings and monuments in DC (Look into the Washington Monument and the many Bible verses engraved).


That's handy, but it overlooks a lot. For example, if a school happens to be broadcasting Christian prayers over the PA that's basically the government state and federal endorsing a religion. 

That's what all these prayer in school initiatives are really trying to reinstate. Which is why the wall needs to remain up forever.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 6, 2009)

is no one else concerned with the fact that it's simply not the school's job to provide moments of silence?  not that big a deal to anyone else?

maybe we should give kids a few minutes to brush their teeth every morning at school.  tooth brushing in public isn't unconstitutional either.

jf


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> But it's not that way at all.
> 
> What's being shut down is an _enforced_ moment of _required_ participation. Of course, those who don't pray at all are obligated to just stand there. I say "stand" since it usually occurred after that other obligatory moment of prayer, the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, when I was in school.



Well, I see it as Separation of Church and State for Christians, and Accommodation of Church and state for Muslims.  I seem to recall Mormons having to give up some of their Religious rights to US law, as well as certain Satanist groups, etc.  But heaven forbid I complain about the teachers stopping class for 15 minutes so Muslims can pray.  

It's been said before:  It should be all or nothing. Every group with the same treatment either allowing it or Disallowing it.  Period.

I don't think we need Prayer in school.  I don't think Christians Need to Pray in School.  I don't think Muslims need to pray in school.  I dont think Wiccans need to Pray in school.  

Bottom line: you want your kids to pray in school, send them to a religious school.  But for ****'s sake, don't tell me my Christian Kids cant have their "Moment of Silence" where they can pray but kids who don't want to can sit quietly, cuz thats wrong and forcing religion on kids, but then argue some Muslim kid gets to pray, but if you don't want to you can sit quietly and read.

I call ******** on that.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 6, 2009)

jarrod said:


> is no one else concerned with the fact that it's simply not the school's job to provide moments of silence?  not that big a deal to anyone else?



Yes.  It's not.  It's not their job to provide it for Christains.  Its not their job to provide it for Jews.  Its not their Job to provide it for Muslims either, but the Muslims GET it and everyone seems ok with that.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 6, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Yes.  It's not.  It's not their job to provide it for Christains.  Its not their job to provide it for Jews.  Its not their Job to provide it for Muslims either, but the Muslims GET it and everyone seems ok with that.


Neither really has a prayer ritual associated with it either. It's not like they need to face a certain direction etc. 

They can pray any time, and as long as they don't insist of praying aloud or striking a pose, who could possibly tell that they were praying, and even if they did, how likely is it that they would be stopped from doing so? 

It's a protection that isn't necessary. (This makes it really hard to care about the "horrible" disparity here.)


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 6, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Christians, the brutally oppressed majority.






Marginal said:


> This makes it really hard to care about the "horrible" disparity here.



Well, ya know, A bigot is a bigot regardless.  Doesnt matter if you hate the blacks, the whites, the chinese, the Christians or the Jews...


----------



## Marginal (Feb 6, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, ya know, A bigot is a bigot regardless.  Doesnt matter if you hate the blacks, the whites, the chinese, the Christians or the Jews...


Zing!

I don't think Christians need special accommodation because they don't do anything that actually needs special accommodation. I also don't think a majority religion has any business perpetually framing itself as the victim of horrible, horrible attacks by evil secularists. Especially when said religion's mainly interested in indoctrinating every single child regardless of the parent's or children's beliefs. 

This is an agenda to force feed Christianity to as many people as possible though the auspices of the state. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 6, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, I see it as Separation of Church and State for Christians, and Accommodation of Church and state for Muslims.



There's plenty of Christian accommodation, actually.  JW's don't have to give an oath in court, in fact they were the ones to fight for that.  They don't have to give the Pledge in school either.  Mormon kids are allowed to go off campus during the school day for religious instruction.  Vegetarian options must be made available for 7th Day Adventists (among others).  Religious allowances of all sort, including Christian, are made for drafted soldiers.  There are others.  They just don't gobble up the attention because they are expected, and the background accommodation that the majority takes for granted.


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> It's questionable how much "religion" is on federal buildings and monuments in DC, upon closer examination. And, in fact, there are *no Bible verses on the Washington Monument.* There are inscriptions on the monument related to its construction and history-mechanics, architects, dedication dates, etc. on each side. There is a weird Welsh inscription on the thing that has no religious meaning whatsoever, and it's something of a mystery as to why it's there and where it came from, and the capstone bears the inscription _Laus Deo_, or "praise God."
> 
> Of course, it's 550 ft. up in the air, where, presumably, no one but God could see it when it was constructed. :lfao:


 
On the stairs of the monument there are 190 plaques some of them include. "Holiness to the Lord" (Exodus 28), "Search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), "The memory of the just is blessed" (Proverbs 10:7) -- and such invocations as, "May Heaven to this Union continue its Benefice."  Laus Deo at the cap is "Praise be to God".

Other religious items in DC

As you walk up the steps to the Capitol which houses the Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view - it is Moses and the Ten Commandments!   As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.   As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall right above where the Supreme Court judges sit is a display of the Ten Commandments 
Here is a link that highlights some others
http://www.godinthetemplesofgovernment.com/

I just think that it is amazing to keep claiming "seperation of church and state" when that has never been the case in the founding of this country.  It was based on Judeo/Christian principles, period.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 7, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Zing!
> 
> I don't think Christians need special accommodation because they don't do anything that actually needs special accommodation.


 
And I never argued that they did.  In fact, I said it should be kept out of schools, with the exception of the belief that if you are going to suspend Church and State for any one group, you better do it for all of them.



Marginal said:


> Especially when said religion's mainly interested in indoctrinating every single child regardless of the parent's or children's beliefs.
> 
> This is an agenda to force feed Christianity to as many people as possible though the auspices of the state. Nothing more, nothing less.


 
That's as rational educated an opinion as "Every Mulsim wants to chop off my head for being an infidel"


----------



## elder999 (Feb 7, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> On the stairs of the monument there are 190 plaques some of them include. "Holiness to the Lord" (Exodus 28), "Search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), "The memory of the just is blessed" (Proverbs 10:7) -- and such invocations as, "May Heaven to this Union continue its Benefice." Laus Deo at the cap is "Praise be to God".




*No*.

Those plaques in the monument were dedicated by various organizations and individuals-until the practice was stopped for individuals. They are, in fact, memorial stones-for Native American tribes, military units, fraternal orders,other countries, and churches-as well as a few individuals. They are neither truly  part of the original monument, nor are they at all evidence of "God in government." Because of delays in construction coinciding with the buildup to the Civil War, and the Civil War itself, there are numerous entreatments to heaven to preserve the Union.While they do reflect public thought at the time, they are in no way meant to reflect anything in regards to the U.S. government, or, for that matter, George Washington.

There are four inscriptions on the monument itself commemorating its building, as well as the inscripton on the capstone praising God.

The stairs up the monument have been closed since the 70's.

See here

And here




punisher73 said:


> Other religious items in DC
> 
> As you walk up the steps to the Capitol which houses the Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view - it is Moses and the Ten Commandments! As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door. As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall right above where the Supreme Court judges sit is a display of the Ten Commandments
> Here is a link that highlights some others
> http://www.godinthetemplesofgovernment.com/


 
And, *no*.

FIrst off, the Supreme Court has its own building, and hasn't been housed at the Capitol since 1935.

The sculpture referred to is on the back of the Supreme Court building, not over its entrance, and all of the "lawgiver" figures are facing forward, the same as Moses.

The doors and the frieze have the Roman numerals I-X  representing, _according to Adolph Weinman, the designer_, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution-the Bill of RIghts.

Seen here




punisher73 said:


> I just think that it is amazing to keep claiming "seperation of church and state" when that has never been the case in the founding of this country. It was based on Judeo/Christian principles, period.


 
I think it's amazing that it's never been the case that the country was based on "Judeo/Christian" principles, and people keep insisting that it was.Of course, that's an altogether different matter, that was discussed at some length here


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 7, 2009)

*John Adams:*
&#8220; The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity&#8230; I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.&#8221;

*Patrick Henry:*
_*"Orator of the Revolution."*_ 
&#8226; This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.&#8221;
&#8212;The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
&#8220;It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.&#8221; [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> That's as rational educated an opinion as "Every Mulsim wants to chop off my head for being an infidel"


That's just what pat Robertson preaches day in and day out. Hardly baseless. 

What next? Cherry pick quotes from the FF? Oh, good. We've already got that going too. Rah.


----------



## tellner (Feb 7, 2009)

Point of order here....

There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian". The Jews have their religion. To the Jewish way of thinking Christianity is the outgrowth of a minor heresy a couple thousand years ago. Jewish theology and Jewish worldview are radically different from the self-congratulatory cartoon which Christians draw in their heads. 

The term "Judeo-Christian" is simply another attempt by Christianity to co-opt Judaism for its own legitimization. Jews want nothing to do with the term. The more traditional the Jew, the less he or she likes it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 7, 2009)

Marginal said:


> That's just what pat Robertson preaches day in and day out. Hardly baseless.


 
Oh noes, Pat Robertson is Every Christian.  Get real.  But that does illustrate my point well.  You can be ignorant and assume that Cuz one person, or a Group or a sect says/thinks somthing that represents em all. 

Whats Next Marginal, "That Jewish man loaned me money!  All Jews Must be Shylocks!"?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> *John Adams:*
> &#8220; The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity&#8230; I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.&#8221;


 
Interestingly, he also said this:



> The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity
> 
> "Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?"
> 
> "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."


 


Archangel M said:


> *Patrick Henry:*
> _*"Orator of the Revolution."*_
> &#8226; This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.&#8221;
> &#8212;The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
> &#8220;It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.&#8221; [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]


 
The source for the second quote is false. Indeed, there is no source for the second quote, and its veracity is in doubt. I'm not sure of his last will and testament, but that's not a government document anyway...




tellner said:


> Point of order here....
> 
> There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian". The Jews have their religion. To the Jewish way of thinking Christianity is the outgrowth of a minor heresy a couple thousand years ago. Jewish theology and Jewish worldview are radically different from the self-congratulatory cartoon which Christians draw in their heads.
> 
> The term "Judeo-Christian" is simply another attempt by Christianity to co-opt Judaism for its own legitimization. Jews want nothing to do with the term. The more traditional the Jew, the less he or she likes it.


 
Actually, while the term first cropped up in the late 19th century to describe shared values, it achieved prominence in American usage as a joint attempt between  Christians and Jews to lessen anti-semitism in the U.S. during the 20's and 30's. It was used to promote the idea of shared values by the National Conference of Christians and Jews.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Oh noes, Pat Robertson is Every Christian.  Get real.  But that does illustrate my point well.  You can be ignorant and assume that Cuz one person, or a Group or a sect says/thinks somthing that represents em all.


I assume he represents a lot of the groups that are desperate to cram Christian prayer services into schools, yes.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 7, 2009)

Marginal said:


> I assume he represents a lot of the groups that are desperate to cram Christian prayer services into schools, yes.



Ok man.  Whatever.  You are the kind of guy, I could say "wow the sky is blue" and you'd go off on how its "Azure" wouldn't you?


----------



## tellner (Feb 7, 2009)

Partly, Elder. But while Christians adopted the phrase wholesale as a form of co-option Jews tended to think of it as a politeness that helped them get by in an environment that could turn hostile at any moment. It did not encourage Jews to make their religion more like normative Christianity. Well, except among the Lubavitchers. But that's a whole different discussion


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Ok man.  Whatever.  You are the kind of guy, I could say "wow the sky is blue" and you'd go off on how its "Azure" wouldn't you?


Right now, it's pretty dark out, so I'll have to go with midnight blue. Periwinkle during the day. :jediduel:


----------



## elder999 (Feb 9, 2009)

tellner said:


> Well, except among the Lubavitchers. But that's a whole different discussion


 
_oy vey!_ :lol:

The only acknowledgment of God in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated "in the year of our Lord 1787." Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God&#8217;s authority, but the effort failed. A pseudonymous opponent of the Connecticut proposal had some fun with the notion of a deity who would, in a sense, be checking the index for his name:_ "A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution_." Instead, the framers, the opponent wrote in The American Mercury_ "come to us in the plain language of common sense and propose to our understanding a system of government as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, not a God appears in a dream to propose any part of it."_

While many states maintained established churches and religious tests for office &#8212; Massachusetts was the last to disestablish, in 1833 &#8212; the federal framers, in their refusal to link civil rights to religious observance or adherence, helped create a culture of religious liberty that ultimately carried the day.

Thomas Jefferson said that his bill for religious liberty in Virginia was_ "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination." _

When George Washington was inaugurated in New York in April 1789, Gershom Seixas, the hazan of Shearith Israel, was listed among the city&#8217;s clergymen (there were 14 in New York at the time) &#8212; a sign of acceptance and respect. The next year, Washington wrote the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I., saying, _"happily the government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."_

Andrew Jackson resisted bids in the 1820s to form a "Christian party in politics." And, as I posted elsewhere, Abraham Lincoln buried a proposed "Christian amendment" to the Constitution to declare the nation&#8217;s fealty to Jesus. Theodore Roosevelt defended William Howard Taft, a Unitarian, from religious attacks by supporters of William Jennings Bryan.

The founders were not anti-religion. Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation &#8212; that all men are created equal &#8212; in the divine. But they wanted faith to be *one* thread in the country&#8217;s tapestry, not the whole tapestry.

In the 1790s, in the waters off Tripoli, pirates were making sport of American shipping near the Barbary Coast. Toward the end of his second term, Washington sent Joel Barlow, the diplomat-poet, to Tripoli to settle matters, and the resulting treaty, finished after Washington left office, bought a few years of peace. Article 11 of this long-ago document says that "_as the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,_" there should be no cause for conflict over differences of "religious opinion" between countries. 
The treaty passed the Senate unanimously-and was *signed by our second President, John Adams*.



> *Abraham Lincoln -*
> _The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma._


----------

