church and state

[SEC=UGA]

We have had discussions here before about how goverment should not allow Christian Symbols to be displayed on state or federally funded property or institutions.

 

In most cases, those on the left side of the aisle rail against the presence of these Christian Symbols.

 

What I would like to discuss is the following: why are liberal groups not attacking publicly funded and federally subsidized instituions, including universities and airports, for installing foot baths and instituting women only facilities hours to accomodate Muslims.

 

Afterall, these institutions receive state and federal funds and none would allow for even a nativity scene to be displayed on their property. Is there a double standard here?

[AtomicCEO]

We have had discussions here before about how goverment should not allow Christian Symbols to be displayed on state or federally funded property or institutions.

 

In most cases, those on the left side of the aisle rail against the presence of these Christian Symbols.

 

What I would like to discuss is the following: why are liberal groups not attacking publicly funded and federally subsidized instituions, including universities and airports, for installing foot baths and instituting women only facilities hours to accomodate Muslims.

 

Afterall, these institutions receive state and federal funds and none would allow for even a nativity scene to be displayed on their property. Is there a double standard here?

 

no.

 

Foot bath = accomodation

Putting up a nativity scene = endorsement

 

Big difference.

[Randall]

We have had discussions here before about how goverment should not allow Christian Symbols to be displayed on state or federally funded property or institutions.

 

In most cases, those on the left side of the aisle rail against the presence of these Christian Symbols.

 

 

 

It isn't just christian symbols. It's using taxpayer property for endorsement of anything. Any religion applies as do many other groups.

[SEC=UGA]

Why would you consider footbaths, prayer rooms, and women only facilities hours accommodations and not a nativity scene?

 

Doesn't spending tax dollars to facilitate the practicing of ones religion amount to just as much of an endorsement, or even more of an endorsement, of a religion as does allowing a group to erect a nativity scene through the use of private funds?

[yo mama]

Doesn't spending tax dollars to facilitate the practicing of ones religion amount to just as much of an endorsement...

No. There's a key difference between government endorsing one religion, and the government allowing people to practice the religion of their own choosing. We have freedom of religion in this country, and the government may accomodate (within reason) folks' constitutionally protected right to do so. But there cannot be an "official" religion of the US. Installing a foot bath in an airport hardly rises to that level. Installing a monolithic replica of the 10 Commandments in a federal building does. That's what the courts say, anyways.

Edited March 29, 2008 by yo mama

[AtomicCEO]

Why would you consider footbaths, prayer rooms, and women only facilities hours accommodations and not a nativity scene?

 

Doesn't spending tax dollars to facilitate the practicing of ones religion amount to just as much of an endorsement, or even more of an endorsement, of a religion as does allowing a group to erect a nativity scene through the use of private funds?

 

I believe prayer rooms are non-denominational, and I don't know what you mean by women-only facilities. Is there a specific story you can link to?

[polksalet]

I support the constitution. The constitution does not support the seperation of church and state.

[yo mama]

I support the constitution. The constitution does not support the seperation of church and state.

Don't be lame. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

 

The term "separation of church and state" wasn't coined until 1802 (a decade or so after) the First Amendment was written. U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, discussed "building a wall of separation between church and state..." The precise words separation of church and state may not appear in the Constitution. But neither does the word "shotgun," and I think you'll agree with me that the 2nd Amendment protects your right to own one of those. So let's not be obtusely literal.

 

Read the letter for yourself. Jefferson was talking about the First Amendment when he wrote those words:

 

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

 

Gentlemen

 

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

 

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

Edited March 29, 2008 by yo mama

[AtomicCEO]

The first amendment is just that.

 

It amends the constitution. I believe Polk was being literal.

[polksalet]

The first amendment is just that.

 

It amends the constitution. I believe Polk was being literal.

 

and accurate

[SEC=UGA]

I believe prayer rooms are non-denominational, and I don't know what you mean by women-only facilities. Is there a specific story you can link to?

Harvard has dedicated certain hours for its recreation and activity center to be women only so that Muslim women can exercise outside of the presence of men. This gives them the ability to work out in something other than a burqua. Or so the argument goes.

[yo mama]

The first amendment is just that.

Which makes it part of the Constitution itself. To argue otherwise would be absurd. We know Polk believes the 2nd Amendment affords "Constitutional" protections, which would only come about if the 2nd Amendment was part of the Constitution itself. The same principal applies to the 1st (and every other) Amendment.

 

You read the Bill of Rights (and all subsequent Amendments) as if they appear in the original Constitution itself. Basic principles of statutory interpretation compel this result. Anything else is wishful thinking, or just wrong.

 

ETA: I'm not making this up, people . Try READING the Bill Of Rights, if you don't believe me:

 

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

 

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

 

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

 

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

 

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.[30]

Edited March 29, 2008 by yo mama

[Jimmy Neutron]

No. There's a key difference between government endorsing one religion, and the government allowing people to practice the religion of their own choosing. We have freedom of religion in this country, and the government may accomodate (within reason) folks' constitutionally protected right to do so. But there cannot be an "official" religion of the US. Installing a foot bath in an airport hardly rises to that level. Installing a monolithic replica of the 10 Commandments in a federal building does. That's what the courts say, anyways.

 

I don't know, seems like a load of crap to me. Public money to help someone worship seems over the line. If we're going to have true separation of church and state, it needs to be all churches.

 

We recently had a "prayer room" controversy at the SLC airport. The prayer building is predominatly used by Muslim cabbies and one of them got ticked that a non-Muslim was irreverant in the building so the Muslim decked the other guy. They are talking about closing the building for good and I think that's the right call.

[Ursa Majoris]

Personally I don't believe any government funding of any description should be used for any religious facility whether accommodations of special religious facilities or things like nativities. Private institutions should be free to do as they like.

[yo mama]

I don't know, seems like a load of crap to me. Public money to help someone worship seems over the line. If we're going to have true separation of church and state, it needs to be all churches.

 

We recently had a "prayer room" controversy at the SLC airport. The prayer building is predominatly used by Muslim cabbies and one of them got ticked that a non-Muslim was irreverant in the building so the Muslim decked the other guy. They are talking about closing the building for good and I think that's the right call.

That's the related, but nevertheless separate, issue of "reasonable accommodation." Providing a non-denominational prayer room is not a governmental endorsement of any particular religion that would violate the 1st Amendment's "anti-establishment clause." But one could argue (and I would agree) that expending public funds on promoting even religion in general during a time of unprecedented national debt and deficit is poor policy, even if it is technically legal.

Edited March 29, 2008 by yo mama

[Azazello1313]

No. There's a key difference between government endorsing one religion, and the government allowing people to practice the religion of their own choosing. We have freedom of religion in this country, and the government may accomodate (within reason) folks' constitutionally protected right to do so. But there cannot be an "official" religion of the US. Installing a foot bath in an airport hardly rises to that level. Installing a monolithic replica of the 10 Commandments in a federal building does. That's what the courts say, anyways.

 

yeah, I'm pretty much buying that. that's why it's OK for the government to build this cool-ass chapel on the grounds of the air force academy. except I think there's a cross in there, which would seem to be "endorsement".

 

I dunno, I have to say none of it offends me much at all. what kind of f'n pathetic ninny loser complains about a nativity scene or a foot bath infringing on his constitutional rights?

[Azazello1313]

I support the constitution. The constitution does not support the seperation of church and state.

 

the constitution explicity neuters the government from making any law respecting any establishment of religion. how can you argue that does not effectively separate church and state?

[yo mama]

yeah, I'm pretty much buying that. that's why it's OK for the government to build this cool-ass chapel on the grounds of the air force academy. except I think there's a cross in there, which would seem to be "endorsement".

 

I dunno, I have to say none of it offends me much at all. what kind of f'n pathetic ninny loser complains about a nativity scene or a foot bath infringing on his constitutional rights?

Hey, I'm not defending any specific example, or taking sides. I'm merely pointing out some of the fundamental principles that exist in this area.

[polksalet]

the constitution explicity neuters the government from making any law respecting any establishment of religion. how can you argue that does not effectively separate church and state?

 

deep thoughts, what is "church"?

[AtomicCEO]

Harvard has dedicated certain hours for its recreation and activity center to be women only so that Muslim women can exercise outside of the presence of men. This gives them the ability to work out in something other than a burqua. Or so the argument goes.

 

That's hot. I bet those chicks rip off their burkas and it's all T&A and spandex.

 

But Harvard's rec center isn't a federally funded facility.

[untateve]

the constitution explicity neuters the government from making any law respecting any establishment of religion. how can you argue that does not effectively separate church and state?

 

You are entering into a debate with Polk. Vaya con dios, amigo.

[Kid Cid]

Harvard has dedicated certain hours for its recreation and activity center to be women only so that Muslim women can exercise outside of the presence of men. This gives them the ability to work out in something other than a burqua. Or so the argument goes.

Harvard is a private institution and as such, can make these type of decisions. This is the same thing as Boston College or Notre Dame being Catholic institutions. They are not federally or state funded such as The University of Massachusetts or Indiana University and therefore not subject to the Constitutional law identifying the separation of church and state.

[H8tank]

No surprise them lieberals love coddling m00lims... You need to get some learning son.

 

How about calls to prayer 5 times a day being blasted over loudspeakers in suburban neighborhoods?

[Azazello1313]

deep thoughts, what is "church"?

 

an "establishment of religion"

[Azazello1313]

No surprise them lieberals love coddling m00lims... You need to get some learning son.

 

How about calls to prayer 5 times a day being blasted over loudspeakers in suburban neighborhoods?

 

slightly more annoying that church bells blaring hymns all day, but not too different in principle.