Gideons battling second round of charges. Why does Florida prosecute people who hand out Bibles?
Why indeed. I wonder...if they were handing out free copies of the latest "Harry Potter" book, would they object to that?
Probably not...
*******
Get this...apparently, having a Bible in a monument makes the monument "unconstitutional."
Ridiculous!
Will someone please inform the Houston court that just because an atheist complains, doesn't mean that the Bible has to be removed!
Sheesh!!
I just don't get these atheists. If they claim not to believe in the God of the Bible, then why does it bother them so much to see one in public? Does this make any sense? No. The complainer just wants to cause trouble.
If the latest copy of the "Harry Potter" books was in the monument, would the atheist complain?
Probably not...
But isn't witchcraft considered as a kind of "religion?" Would an atheist protest that a Wicca/witchcraft book violates the "separation of church and state" myth? (BTW, that phrase, "separation of church and state" isn't even in the Constitution!)
***more later***
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Christine, you can't rewrite history, nor the Constitution, to suit your own needs. No, the exact phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't exist in the Constitution, however, that doesn't indicated that somehow that isn't exactly what was meant by the author, primarily James Madison, with support from Thomas Jefferson. It's the same argument you make all the time about homosexuality...just because Jesus doesn't SAY anything about it doesn't mean he CONDONES it. Right?
The amendment states the following:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It is clear, even without the specific phrase, that the government is absolutely NOT allowed to make ANY law that respects or favors any religion. However, nor is it allowed to infringe upon our right to practice religion as we see fit.
Just as the argument of Jesus' view of homosexuality is made not with specific words, but in the context of the rest of His words and actions, the same can be done for the Constitution. Although, Madison was a prolific correspondent, so we know EXACTLY what he meant because he said so many, many times in writing! For instance, he wrote a letter to the Baptists churches in 1811 that said:
"Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United," (and here he makes the specific point) "political distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States"
Since he is the one who actually wrote that amendment, I think he, of all people, knew what he meant by the wording. He also wrote many times that there was to be a "total separation of the church from the state." Perfectly clear. No need to guess what he meant.
I absolutely understand what you're saying, Christine, but please don't try to change, rewrite or twist history to accommodate your argument. These men who are being prosecuted are protected with the same amendment, so I agree with you that their prosecution is unconstitutional, unless the police report is correct and they were on school property, not a public sidewalk. If the report is correct, the were asked to step onto the public sidewalk, where they could continue handing out Bibles but refused, then they were trespassing on school property and subject to laws prohibiting that, regardless of their religion. If they refused to leave school property to make a point, they did more harm than good. They could have stepped onto the public sidewalk and continued distributing Bibles, but decided, instead, to break the law. The law applies to everyone, including Christians.
I certainly wouldn't want any stranger allowed to distribute anything on the grounds of my daughter's school. I don't want anyone around the children who doesn't belong there. Luckily those children weren't in harms way, but think of what could have happened if those men were pedophiles. Seriously, Christine, do you think it's ok for strange men to wander around unchecked on school property?
Jaded,
I think that our government DOES want to, and needs to respect all religions. It is the establishment of a particular religion by Congress that is prohibited.
I am currently reading a booklet called, "What They Believed." It describes the faith of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.
I want to give a more detailed reply, but I have an appointment today. Here is the end of the long excerpt that I wanted to share from the booklet:
In fact, Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights, said that the government was forbidden from establishing a national religion. The First Amendment was given, as all of the testimony indicates, to do two things: to prevent the Congress from establishing a state church (like the Anglican Church in England, from which they had fled), and second, from interfering with the free exercise of religion. That has been grossly distored in our day. We have been deceived. The "wall of separation" is a total distortion and perversion of the original meaning of the First Amendment. It is a lie.
Yes. The booklet was written by a preacher. But he goes on to say:
...but what does an esteemed legal authority have to say? How about this:
"There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]...the "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
That was from William Rehnquist, who, as we all know, was the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
So you see, Jaded, the modern "wall of separation" is a total distortion that has been used by the ACLU and others to try to suppress and demolish Christianity - to remove it altogether from the public square. It is my plan to share much more detail about this later.
Post a Comment