• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are You Tired of the Separation of Church and State?

Glitch said:
While I agree with what you said, you are talking about government restrictions here, not restrictions on individuals. Meaning that a school cannot compel or restrict a speech by a valedictorian, even if it is extremely religious in nature, without also violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. A religious speech by a valedictorian does not establish a government religion, nor is the government promoting a particular religion by allowing the valedictorian to speak freely. Once again, all those restrictions you mentioned are restrictions against government interference with religion, and does not apply to individuals.
Click to expand...
The valedictorian may speak freely....just not on school grounds
 
Glitch said:
While I agree with what you said, you are talking about government restrictions here, not restrictions on individuals. Meaning that a school cannot compel or restrict a speech by a valedictorian, even if it is extremely religious in nature, without also violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. A religious speech by a valedictorian does not establish a government religion, nor is the government promoting a particular religion by allowing the valedictorian to speak freely. Once again, all those restrictions you mentioned are restrictions against government interference with religion, and does not apply to individuals.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the schools that restrict valedictorians from speaking on issues like gay rights or abortion.
 
Glitch said:
While I agree with what you said, you are talking about government restrictions here, not restrictions on individuals. Meaning that a school cannot compel or restrict a speech by a valedictorian, even if it is extremely religious in nature, without also violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. A religious speech by a valedictorian does not establish a government religion, nor is the government promoting a particular religion by allowing the valedictorian to speak freely. Once again, all those restrictions you mentioned are restrictions against government interference with religion, and does not apply to individuals.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. The 1st Amendment does not ban prayer or religious speech in school by students. The ban is against government paid employees leading prayers, or engaging in speech promoting a religion on school grounds. Private schools may treat prayer and religion however they like.
 
VanceMack said:
Its a shame leftists dont recognize that where the 2nd Amendment is concerned.
Click to expand...
It's a shame rightists don't recognize the ENTIRE 2nd Amendment but only the part they want to recognize.
 
Loulit01 said:
I agree with this. The 1st Amendment does not ban prayer or religious speech in school by students. The ban is against government paid employees leading prayers, or engaging in speech promoting a religion on school grounds. Private schools may treat prayer and religion however they like.
Click to expand...
No the ban is using school grounds for conducting religious activities. Can a student conduct a catholic mass as part of his speech? No
 
vegas giants said:
No the ban is using school grounds for conducting religious activities. Can a student conduct a catholic mass as part of his speech? No
Click to expand...
Only priests can conduct mass. I appreciate your viewpoint but you are incorrect. Schools may set aside classroom for the religious use of students after school, but no one employed by the school may be present.

Contrary to popular myth, the Supreme Court has never outlawed “prayer in schools.” Students are free to pray alone or in groups, as long as such prayers are not disruptive and do not infringe upon the rights of others. But this right “to engage in voluntary prayer does not include the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.” (This is the language supported by a broad range of civil liberties and religious groups in a joint statement of current law.)

Homepage - Freedom Forum

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.
www.freedomforuminstitute.org www.freedomforuminstitute.org

You may be right in that the valedictorian has a "captive audience" thus is not allowed to engage in the promotion of religion, but it would depend on the wording of the speech.
 
Loulit01 said:
Only priests can conduct mass. I appreciate your viewpoint but you are incorrect. Schools may set aside classroom for the religious use of students after school, but no one employed by the school may be present.

Contrary to popular myth, the Supreme Court has never outlawed “prayer in schools.” Students are free to pray alone or in groups, as long as such prayers are not disruptive and do not infringe upon the rights of others. But this right “to engage in voluntary prayer does not include the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.” (This is the language supported by a broad range of civil liberties and religious groups in a joint statement of current law.)

Homepage - Freedom Forum

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.
www.freedomforuminstitute.org www.freedomforuminstitute.org

You may be right in that the valedictorian has a "captive audience" thus is not allowed to engage in the promotion of religion, but it would depend on the wording of the speech.
Click to expand...
Anyone can conduct mass according to the Constitution. The captive audience is the problem. This is a school organized event
 
fmw said:
And yet government does these things - not often of course - but when it suits the needs of the political establishment.

That is true. The constitution applies to all government in the U.S.
Click to expand...
The last time it happened was in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd, et al, Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al., 584 U.S. ___ (2018), where the State of Colorado displayed a particular animosity towards Mr. Phillips' religion and his religious beliefs, violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Given the vehement hatred Democrats have towards Christianity and Christians in general, we are going to be seeing a lot more of these types of cases in the future.
 
Glitch said:
The last time it happened was in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd, et al, Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al., 584 U.S. ___ (2018), where the State of Colorado displayed a particular animosity towards Mr. Phillips' religion and his religious beliefs, violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Given the vehement hatred Democrats have towards Christianity and Christians in general, we are going to be seeing a lot more of these types of cases in the future.
Click to expand...
Let's hope
 
Loulit01 said:
Only priests can conduct mass. I appreciate your viewpoint but you are incorrect. Schools may set aside classroom for the religious use of students after school, but no one employed by the school may be present.

Contrary to popular myth, the Supreme Court has never outlawed “prayer in schools.” Students are free to pray alone or in groups, as long as such prayers are not disruptive and do not infringe upon the rights of others. But this right “to engage in voluntary prayer does not include the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.” (This is the language supported by a broad range of civil liberties and religious groups in a joint statement of current law.)

Homepage - Freedom Forum

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.
www.freedomforuminstitute.org www.freedomforuminstitute.org

You may be right in that the valedictorian has a "captive audience" thus is not allowed to engage in the promotion of religion, but it would depend on the wording of the speech.
Click to expand...
He is not right, and yes students may pray in schools. The restrictions apply to government, and those who work for the government. The restrictions do not apply to private individuals.

As I previously mentioned, a valedictorian speech cannot establish a religion, nor is the valedictorian representing the government if they choose to give a religious speech. Any school that stops or restricts a valedictorian from saying anything they wish to say, religious or otherwise, is violating the valedictorian's right to free speech.

Only government can establish a religion, and only those who are employed by the government can be advocates. While the principle or any of the school teachers may be prohibited from singling out a particular religion, a valedictorian does not fall under the same restrictions.
 
Glitch said:
He is not right, and yes students may pray in schools. The restrictions apply to government, and those who work for the government. The restrictions do not apply to individuals.

As I previously mentioned, a valedictorian speech cannot establish a religion, nor is the valedictorian representing the government if they choose to give a religious speech. Any school that stops or restricts a valedictorian from saying anything they wish to say, religious or otherwise, they are violating the valedictorian's right to free speech.

Only government can establish a religion, and only those who are employed by the government can be advocates. While the principle or any of the school teachers may be prohibited from singling out a particular religion, a valedictorian does not fall under the same restrictions.
Click to expand...
A student may not lead prayer at a school function.
 
Ok

You can delete the whole seperation of church and state, in exchange for repealing the 2nd Amendment.

Compomide

Deal?
 
Been doing a bit of reading in my free time and have found articles that focus on the growing movement that has been labeled White Christian Nationalism. The OP mentions Rep. Boebert but a google search will find other politicians spewing forth the same thoughts -- OK, Beliefs, not thoughts. That America is a Christian nation, always has been and only in recent years have those 'others' been able to silence the Real Americans.

Here's one of the articles I found while investigating White Christian Nationalism [WCN]

Yale sociologist Phil Gorski on the threat of White Christian nationalism

“The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy (Oxford University Press),” a new book Gorski coauthored with sociologist Samuel L. Perry of the University of Oklahoma, is a primer that relies on historical sources and survey data to explain the ideology, trace its origins and history, and describe the threat it poses to the United States.
[. . .]
What does “freedom” mean to White Christian nationalists?


Gorski: For various reasons, there’s a very individualistic idea of freedom within White Christian nationalism today. It isn’t freedom in the sense of being a democratic citizen working with others to pursue the common good. It is a strongly libertarian, “don’t tread on me” mentality. Historically, it goes together with a certain idea of order that places White men on the top of society with everyone else below them. Anything that threatens that order is seen as a justification for violence.


You can really see this in the Capitol insurrection. It occurred against the background of the Black Lives Matter movement and nationwide calls for racial justice, which White Christian nationalists view as a threat to the racial order. It offends their notion of freedom and liberty. It leads to guys showing up to the Capitol with cattle prods and bear spray ready to beat up police officers in the name of their understanding of patriotism. In the book, we call it a Holy Trinity of freedom, order, and violence.
Click to expand...

This White Christian Nationalism movement is not something that started with trump's election in 2016 or his defeat in 2020, though it has grown during the past 6 years. It has been in the minds of others who call themselves Christian for a few years. An article by a retired Baptist missionary written in 2006 expressed one Christian's worry about the issue.

Christian Nationalism Growing​


One reviewer said the wall separating church and state is more like a rusty, chain-link fence, poorly maintained and full of gaps.


I know from experience that today’s private Christian schools and many churches are actively teaching against such a wall. One Dallas radio host called it a myth, a term often used on Trinity Broadcasting Network programs.


Journalist Goldberg calls the growing movement Christian nationalism. She writes: “The motivating dream of the movement is the restoration of an imagined Christian nation.”


These Christian fundamentalists are not just against abortion and same-sex marriage and wanting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. They want to create in America a theology that puts the Bible and the Ten Commandments above our Constitution. They believe Christians have a right to rule this land because the founding fathers were Christians.


It was not so long ago the Texas Republican Party declared in its 2004 platform that the United States “is a Christian nation.”


First, all the founding fathers were not Christians. They were mostly God-fearing men who wanted people to have the choice to worship as they chose. No state church or church activities paid for with tax dollars.


Second, this country was founded to be a free land with no one religion in charge. Good morals are the same for any religion or no religion. The wisdom of God is not partial (James 3:17).​
Click to expand...

So. what's the danger of WCN? Oh maybe that God and guns thing that we see being promoted by some Americans

Michael Flynn is recruiting an ‘Army of God’ in growing Christian nationalist movement​

 
Of course my link here is on the 'radical left network' MSNBC and the article is written by one of those librul academic types -- Cynthia Miller-Idriss is a professor in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Education at American University, where she directs the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL).

Ignore the claims if they provide information you find a bit disturbing.

Christian nationalism is a racist, ahistorical ideology of violence​

Christian nationalism twists the scriptures and the Constitution.

A growing number of Republicans — including Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Col., Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. — espouse Christian nationalism.

One of the longest-standing principles of American democracy — the separation of church and state— is under attack by people embracing Christian nationalism. That ideology says that the U.S. is and should remain a Christian nation and that Christianity should be prioritized by the state. Even when it is not stated, Christian nationalism implicitly calls for the U.S. to be a white Christian nation.

By definition, Christian nationalism is incompatible with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from imposing or endorsing a particular religion. But Christian nationalists would prefer that we ignore that founding document.

In April, Doug Mastriano, Pennsylvania’s Republican nominee for governor, called the separation of church and state a "myth." That same month, Maryland’s Republican nominee for governor, Dan Cox, told a crowd that his platform “recognizes the creator” and said “we have rights that supersede government.”

It’s not just Mastriano and Cox. A growing number of Republicans now espouse Christian nationalism. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado argued in June that “the church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia put it more bluntly in July. “I’m a Christian and I say it proudly,” she said. “We should be Christian nationalists.”
Click to expand...

[continued]
 
The professor also notes that a certain guy in another country, a man that some Americans have said is being maligned by the "leftists" is also promoting Christian nationalism. Makes me wonder if this is at least part of the reason some Americans are pushing for America to drop military support of Ukraine.

American conservatives aren’t the only ones who’ve adopted such language. In a speech last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who launched an unprovoked attack against Ukraine in February, described the entire Western world as Satanists. Also last month, the head of the Russian Orthodox church, Patriarch Kirill, said that Russian soldiers who die in Ukraine will be cleansed of all their sins.
Click to expand...

The professor is not attacking Christianity but is going down on the perversion, she and thousands of Christians see being espoused by some Americans

Let me be clear, Christian nationalism is not Christianity. Nor is it ordinary patriotism or mere pride in being American. It is a perversion of both Christianity and patriotism. That’s why over 24,000 clergy, church leaders and lay people from across the U.S. have signed a statement of “Christians against Christian Nationalism,” which argues that Christian nationalism is “distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy.”

Christians who run for office on a platform that denies the separation of church and state are dangerous to our democracy.
Click to expand...
 
JH Oldoc said:
If you are, you might be Lauren Boobert.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/boebert-says-she-tired-separation-205248681.html

Brad Dress
Tue, June 28, 2022 at 4:52 PM


Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) says she is “tired” of the long-standing separation between church and state in the U.S., adding that she believes “the church is supposed to direct the government.”
In a Sunday speech at the Cornerstone Christian Center in Basalt, Colo., ahead of her primary election on Tuesday, Boebert argued that “the government is not supposed to direct the church,” falsely claiming that dividing religion from the system of government was not what the Founding Fathers intended.
“I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk — that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like they say it does,” Boebert said, earning a round of applause from the audience.

What we need is Theocracy.....apparently
Can inquisition and witch burnings be far behind?
Click to expand...
She needs to turn in her GED and get a real education.
 
vegas giants said:
The valedictorian may speak freely....just not on school grounds
Click to expand...
It's funny to realize that more freedom is given in education to using the "F" word, express ones sexual preference, and the practice of secular humanism ---- then is allowed for the mere mention of GOD (other than in the Pledge of Allegiance ---- and that was Eisenhower's parting gift).
 
LittleNipper said:
It's funny to realize that more freedom is given in education to using the "F" word, express ones sexual preference, and the practice of secular humanism ---- then is allowed for the mere mention of GOD (other than in the Pledge of Allegiance ---- and that was Eisenhower's parting gift).
Click to expand...
"If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. In the first place, that stuff bores me, and in the second place, my parents would have two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them. They’re quite touchy about anything like that, especially my father. They’re nice and all - I’m not saying that - but they’re also touchy as hell. Besides, I’m not going to tell you my whole goodam autobiography or anything. I’ll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out and take it easy. "

First paragraph of the Catcher in the Rye.

The paragraph that, in 8th grade, turned me from a kid who hardly read unless I had to, into a student with a genuine thirst for literature.

Lighten up. For christs sake.

Literature is good.

Young people can handle cuss words. They already use them, or at least hear them on a daily basis from their peers.

English teachers need to give them books that will get their attention and hold their interest.......not give them a bunch of sanitized stuff that will bore them right out of any interest in, or love of reading.
 
NolanVoyd said:
"If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. In the first place, that stuff bores me, and in the second place, my parents would have two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them. They’re quite touchy about anything like that, especially my father. They’re nice and all - I’m not saying that - but they’re also touchy as hell. Besides, I’m not going to tell you my whole goodam autobiography or anything. I’ll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out and take it easy. "

First paragraph of the Catcher in the Rye.

The paragraph that, in 8th grade, turned me from a kid who hardly read unless I had to, into a student with a genuine thirst for literature.

Lighten up. For christs sake.

Literature is good.

Young people can handle cuss words. They already use them, or at least hear them on a daily basis from their peers.

English teachers need to give them books that will get their attention and hold their interest.......not give them a bunch of sanitized stuff that will bore them right out of any interest in, or love of reading.
Click to expand...
So students can handle some things but not the Bible? And "Christ" is okay if used as a byword but not in a deep discussion about Atheism vs. GOD?
 
LittleNipper said:
So students can handle some things but not the Bible? And "Christ" is okay if used as a byword but not in a deep discussion about Atheism vs. GOD?
Click to expand...
It's not about students not being able to handle the Bible, it's that public schools are a branch of the state, and as such, are not constitutionally allowed to "establish" a religion.

And they would be establishing a religion if they taught one religion's holy book, and not all the others too.

If the Koran was taught in public schools and not the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita, and paganism, and articles about athiesm etc. Then the state would be "establishing" Islam as the favored religion


You would hate that and it would be unconstitutional.

If the Bible was taught and not the others, that would also be unconstitutional.

The state cannot establish a religion.

You CAN teach the Bible in public schools if it is in a comparative religions class where equal time is given to other belief systems.
 
LittleNipper said:
It's funny to realize that more freedom is given in education to using the "F" word, express ones sexual preference, and the practice of secular humanism ---- then is allowed for the mere mention of GOD (other than in the Pledge of Allegiance ---- and that was Eisenhower's parting gift).
Click to expand...
It's not funny. It's appropriate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom