Ever had to argue that "Separation of Church and State" is important...

[Up2Late]

...and, although the words "...seperation of Church and State" are not "in" the Constitution, but that's what was meant by X,Y, and Z?!?!? And no matter how long you argued with the RW POD (think Invasion of the Body Snatchers), you couldn't find the argument to convince them they are wrong? Well, you are in luck!

This weekend, the Chicago Public Radio show "This American Life" NEW episode is "Godless America" and is playing this week around the country You can find a radio audio stream at this link:

<http://www.publicradiofan.com/cgi-bin/program.pl?programid=28>

The show is playing at the top of 3 more hours tonight, look for the stations in bold at Publicradio Fan .com

Godless America
At a time when House Majority Leader Tom Delay calls for enacting a "Biblical worldview" in government, when Christians are asserting their ideals in the selection of judges, in public school science classes and elsewhere, This American Life spends an hour trying to remember why anyone liked the separation of church and state in the first place. Julia Sweeney, among others, gives a full-throated defense of godlessness. Julia's faith began to crack after reading Biblical passages like the one pictured here, of Abraham about to cut the throat of his beloved son, Isaac. Broadcast the weekend of June 3-5 in most places, or available via RealAudio next week.
For more:
Vision America is trying to recruit and mobilize thousands of "patriot pastors" in national politics. The Ohio Restoration Project is doing the same in Ohio. Disagreeing with their vision of the country is Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Each side has its own historical research:

* Wallbuilders sells books and DVDs arguing that the separation of church and state is a myth.
* On the other side is the book The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore.

Or later in the week, it will be available at: <http://www.thislife.org/>

Godless America
6/3/05
Episode 290

Or at Audable .com

[izzie]

1. I do not think we want the country to be Godless.

No one has ever said you could not believe in Gods or a God. It is just we want govt. with reason and leave all that out on who's God is the best stuff. That is what it always come to if you let a religious take over running the govt.

[Proud_Lefty]

7. But it will become godless

If the separation is taken away. I love the argument to Christians asking if they would be comfortable with a government Christian religious that was different than theirs, becoming the law of our country. For instance, most fundamentalists believe in getting medical attention as Christian Science does not. What if Christian Science becomes the law of the country and we are forbidden from getting any kind of healthcare for ourselves or our children? Are these Christian really ready to have the government decide their particular faith for them.

With separation, they are free to practice their religion as they please. I don't understand why anyone would want to give that up, except for a corrupt government that wants to further control our lives and finances.

[JDPriestly]

8. Better yet, what if Scientology became a popular religion?

By the way, why shouldn't Scientologists or Native American religions -- get faith-based funding.

[Proud_Lefty]

9. Good question

Would be interesting to find out.

[Up2Late]

10. I hope you did listen to the show, Julia Sweeny made some great...

...points about some of the weird stuff that really IS in the bible, :crazy: from a "Catholic that has never actually read the Bible" perspective. I can relate, I grew up Catholic, but we DID leave the Bible reading to "the Experts."


The "This American Life" Program is available at Audible .com now, the Free RealAudio version will be available soon.

[BattyDem]

2. If the US was intended to be a Christian nation ...

then why does the First Amendment directly contradict the First Commandment?

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... "

First Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

Now ... if the Founding Fathers wanted a Christian nation, why would they have clearly stated in the very first amendment to the Constitution that the government would not impose any religion on people, nor would it prevent people from practicing their chosen religion. Shouldn't the amendment have said something like, "Congress hereby decrees that all people shall worship no other gods before the Christian God"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've posted this on DU before, but since then, I've mentioned it to a few people who hit me with the "We were always intended to be a Christian nation" crap ... and they had no response. :-)

[Up2Late]

5. What's so amazing is that, during this show, one of the RW Nuts...

...keeps saying "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say 'separation of Church and State...," implying that, if those EXACT words are not it there, he won't believe it. I think this type of person would be perfect for a counter argument that most people like this make.

Most of these guy's say, "God hates Gay people," I'd love to tell one of these "exact words" people, Hey, Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "God Hates Gay people!" and then see if they have a response to that.

That would be fun to try. :evilgrin:

[BattyDem]

6. LOL! I'll have to try that ...

that's a great response! :toast:

[tex-wyo-dem]

12. The Constitution may not say explicitly that...

church and state must be separate, but this was clearly the intention of the founders. Jefferson (and I believe other founders) said in no uncertain terms that religion and government must be kept separate, but that government must guarantee the free practice of religion.

What's gotten the RWer's shorts in a wad over the years has been efforts by the ACLU and others to remove religious symbols from government property, outlawing organized prayer in public schools, etc., etc. Although these actions are clearly in the spirit of the idea of separation of church and state per the founders intentions, the RWers see it as an effort by the left to "destroy religion" and make our society secular. What they fail to accept is that all religious activities are protected by the Constitution...you can pray anywhere you want, you can worship however you want, etc....the state, however, cannot provide for or officially advocate these practices in support of any religion.

RWers also fail to understand that theocratic governments throughout history have been miserable failures, especially where it comes to individual rights.

[Up2Late]

13. I hope you will listen to this Radio Show episode that this post is about

Because it sound like you, and most of the others posting here, don't totally understand the "non-reality based" argument that these extreme RWers (with the help of Tom DeLay) are and will be pushing for the near future.

Yes, what you wrote IS correct, but none of this matters at all to these people. According to the experts interviewed in this show, this is the 6th time (in U.S. History), but the first time since 1953, that the Religious Right has tried to have Protestant Religion written into the Federal Constitution. If you haven't read it, you should read (or hear it here) the re-written preamble to the U.S. Constitution that these folks proposed to President Lincoln in 1863, it's frightening.

This program is great the way it first presents the RW/Tom Delay argument, then the author from the "Reality-base" (the other 98%'s) side. Facts and actual history mean nothing to the RRW, they argue that up until 1963, the U.S. was almost a Protestant Theocracy, which all changed in the early 1960's. It's total BS, but it's what we are going to hear from now until we take back the Congress and White House.

[Mythsaje]

3. It's simple

The original colonies were made up of people who followed various sects of Christianity and the Founding Fathers had to strike a delicate balance to convince the various representatives that one sect wouldn't be allowed to take precedence over the others.

The same concept applies now. Sure, many Christians have similar values, there are those who do not. The Quakers will almost NEVER agree with Evangelicals, and many Fundamentalists don't even consider Catholics to be 'real' Christians at all.

Imagine a white supremacist sect gaining control of the country. It's not as outlandish as it sounds.

[Proud_Lefty]

4. I'm dealing with this kind of stuff right now

I'm on a Separation of Church and State Committee for our local DFA. One of my close friends just wrote this LTE. As soon as I received a copy, I responded to her that we'd immediately get a group together to start attending these School Board meetings and raising some serious questions. I'm a parent of high school kids, and this type of stuff inflames me.

MAJOR MURRIETA ISSUE; CHURCH & STATE ARE BEING MERGED TOGETHER
IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO TEACH MORAL CONCEPTS!

Education, church officials talk collaboration on student program"

Re: Religion & the Church: Public education is being incorporated in the Murrieta Schools and are in the works! Murrieta school district wants to make the students morally responsible by using scriptures. So a meeting was held at the Murrieta Valley Unified School District's headquarters where an "official" (anonymous source) ASKED the city's religious leaders for assistance in promoting the program. This is out of control!

Young said he was aware that it is not typical, but not unheard of for churches and school districts to work together and didn't want to recreate the "past brouhaha of separation of church & state." And "they want to do it legally and not offensively." Well it's offensive to me. And the audacity to use the word "brouhaha" in reference to the constitution. To me it's as though he is basically dismissing the constitution. This Young person is doing the same thing the administration does. If it doesn't fit into their plan, "it's dismissed!"

Another point from the above passage. He said above that it's been done in other schools, intermingling church & state. So, does that make it okay?' No, all those other schools are breaking the tuition, also.

ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL!

Another point: It is ILLEGAL! The Constitution directly "Separation of Church & State." I don't see anything in the article including Catholicism, Islam, Holy Rollers, Primitive Baptist, etc. (1) The California, 6-1-05, pg. B5. The school district is deciding what religions to use.

Now let me tell you what the Supreme Court passed regarding some religious practices at the penitentiary level: "The Supreme Court sided with a Satanist, a racial separatist, and a witch - in the jail system- on Tuesday, upholding a federal law requiring state prisons to accommodate the religious " leanings of the prison group. These upstanding prisoners must be given the religious information they need, so they can practice it in jail.

Now, I could be wrong, but since "witch, Satanist, and racial separatists are considered religions," I also want them to be taught at the Murrieta school district, because all religious values should be included if they are allowed to teach them. But, again, teaching any religion at school is against the constitution!

The law says that "states" receiving federal money must accommodate prisoners' religious beliefs. The court's unanimous ruling addressed a narrow issue: whether the law as written is an unconstitutional government promotion of religion - that law was written in 2000 (and probably under Bush's watch). Yes, to me the law is unconstitutional.

Well, let me tell you, there is nothing in the constitution saying
that if you accept federal money, you must also let prisoners practice any religion they want. To me, this is another example of rewriting the constitution.

And this article also said that the Supreme Court passed it unanimously! Again the constitution precisely states, "separation of church and state" and money has no decision in that law in the constitution.

Young said he'd e-mail the group about training sessions and volunteers. A minister, Sarah Halverson , of another church said she would prefer a "large-scale training seminar on "the 40" developmental assets for all of the city's churches. Wow. (This is out of control). To find out more about these "40 developmental assets" can be found by visiting www.murrieta.k12.ca.us
(http://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us)

By using that e-mail above, a public school website, and mixing it in with religion is beyond the pale.

We need major trips to the school district, be vocal and open , and plan to file a lawsuit, if necessary, to stop this. This is out and out blatant disregard for the constitution. It's breaking the law at the constitutional level, the Supreme Court level for "reinterpreting" the constitution, and impeachable at the federal level, for breaking the original constitution.

Now just reclaiming the govt is really convoluted. So many laws have been rewritten, that the constitution is no longer a democratic one. How do you fix something that has been changed at all levels. How do you do it peacefully or democratically? You can't, because it is no longer a democratic democracy.

My plan: I am going to wherever the meeting is or wherever I have to go and tell them in writing that a lawsuit that will be filed for blatant disregard and breaking the the constitution. I do have an ethical lawyer cousin in San Diego. He'd give us the papers, etc, I'm sure, and tell us what to do. I've known him forever, and he's fantastic.

A lot of what I wrote here is from The Californian Article, and I'll probably go to jail for fifty years, because i copied a lot of the article. Oh well, I'll carry on in prison. And you know the really bad guys will just get their hands slapped!

Ann

P.S. Why haven't these religious leaders been able to give these core values to their kids. If 90% of people in U.S. believe in Jesus and teach these core values at home, there should be no problem in the public schools. I wouldn't want all of these volunteers teaching my grandchildren moral concepts if they can't even be successful with their own.

[Igel]

11. Yes, on both sides.

I've seen dems that wanted regulations or proscriptions on some church activities, and Xians (and Muslims) that wanted religion-based requirements in schools and exceptional accommodation for their beliefs in the public sphere.

Arguing against the dems was a trivial matter: First Amendment. Many wanted bits of it disposed of because they didn't like those particular bits; it meant they or their kids were exposed to things they found distasteful. Sometimes it was concerning a specific religious group, sometimes larger subsets.

Arguing against the religious folks was a bit trickier. A strict reading of the First Amendment doesn't imply a wall, just no establishment, presumably of a specific sectarian set of doctrines. "Xianity" wasn't exactly the monolithic entity it's now construed to be, at least by some people,, and Hinduism and "Mohammedanism" weren't on the table.

It got a bit tricky with both sides when it came to state and local regulations, since the First Amendment prevents "Congress" from acting, and is, perforce, mute regarding other legislative bodies. I grew up with blue laws, for example.

It doesn't help that the founding fathers typically presumed, but didn't assert, a "Christian" country, and quite possibly didn't regard the comparatively weaker central government as necessarily the most important locus of authority. "Christian" is in quotes because they spoke in terms of virtue and righteousness, which typically implied, but didn't necessarily entail, Christianity.

[KT2000]

14. It's simple

if someone does not think there should be separation of church and state remind them that it goes without saying that the prayers in our scools and icons in our tax supported buildings should represent our devotion to Allah. Who else?

Funny how it is always assumed that the marriage of church and state would result in a Christian state.

[usregimechange]

15. Nearly everyday in SW MO