Melchior
New member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- Palm Beach, Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
galenrox said:The freedom TO religion is definately important, but it's a slippery slope. Individual prayer in school should be allowed, but a specified time is inappropriate, due to the presence of atheists.
It seems to me is that the role of public schools in this issue is to keep out any preference of any religion, and it would seem that the easiest way to do this is to keep religion out of public schools, but what makes this difficult is that could infringe on students ability to practice their own personal religion, and thus overstep their bounds.
I think a good idea is just have five minutes a day where there is just nothing specified. Kids can go online, do homework, talk with their friends, pray, whatever, and that way it doesn't show preference to any religion, but doesn't infringe upon the rights to practice.
It's in these fringe areas that the complexities of the issue really come out.
Melchior said:There is a quarrel in this country over the issue of Separation of Church and State.
Some people believe the idea is clearly written in the Constitution and means we must have a secular government in order to remain free. Some people believe Separation of Church and State is a myth.
To those who think the idea is a myth: Why are you trying so hard to disprove it? Even if this constitutional law did not exist is it really such a bad idea? Do you want a theocracy?
Actually, I don't think it matters if you ask which creator. The point of being endowed by a creator with unalienable rights rests on a person realizing he is not the creator. Rights are not manifested from within a man, but come from something superior. Which creator a person belives in is unimportant, since reason tells us that there can only be one creator, no matter his/her/its name. origin, or pleasure.Thebestien said:The question is which creator?
Do you think it looks like "equal rights" towards muslims for example?
Besides, if religion and state were splited, you wouldn't have a president who thinks he is on missions for god.... The only other one that I know believe is on a mission for god is called Oussama...
Another thing: to teach a kid a religion ain't quite good because he will think it's for sure, and he will take it for a truth, but there's no proof of that. It's like teaching children false things. Moreover religion should be a matter of personal choice, and not something that you "learn" at school...
That's my advice, waiting for replys...
(sorry about my english)
Here's something to consider: If rights come from man and man's laws, then wouldn't you agree that man can remove them? If rights come from the Diety, then man has no right to remove rights granted by the Diety...Thebestien said:For me human rights are only coming from human history, and from human mind. It only comes from laws written by humans. Else, how would you explain years of slavement.... People who were bringing slaves in Europa or in the US were chretians...
I'm sorry about Bush, I just think he believes too much in god and in America. It really scares me when he says he is on a mission for god... Crusades ended a long time ago.
And even admitting that human rights are coming from a creator, which ain't right for me like I said, you'll still be able to teach children human rights without the religious side. Just say them: "every human on earth are or should be equals, no matter what religion, nationality or skin color they are". Sounds possible to me.
Your's is a subtle difference than what Jefferson wrote, that "we are endowed by our Creastor with certain inalienable rights." That means they can't be rightfully removed by man. But you're right, that rights are maintained by man, and that that's the reason governments are instituted, to protect those rights...galenrox said:I believe a man deserves those rights because of God, but he is given these rights by man, and they are maintained by man. God leaves a lot of our management to ourselves, which is another reason to completely seperate church and state.
Actually, I don't think it's a requirement for a newly elected person to place his hand on the Bible. They only do it for two reasons: #1, they really believe they should, and #2, if they didn't people would talk.Thebestien said:Got a question: your president, right after the election, has to promise on the Bible, right? (ouch, sorry about my english, hope you'll still understand)
Do you think this is fair? How would you do if an amercian muslim (or atheist) whishes to run for presidency? That I can't understand for now...
Another thing, that you won't like at all. I think that the way you see politics in the US (God is with the government, God bless America) doesn't help you to be open with others countries, and to question yourself about what you're doing from time to time. (I warned you ;-)
This is only what I think, it's up to you to show me if i'm wrong...
FiremanRyan said:the problem is the extent that people take this argument. even as a christian, i dont believe government should have any authority on our beliefs, but today this has taken on an entirely different meaning.
a separation of church and state merely means that the state cannot take away our freedom to worship in whatever way we choose. but when the state takes away our freedom to religion (i.e. not being able to pray in public shools), it then becomes a separation of church and society, which is clearly unconstitutional. the whole thing is a catch-22, it just goes in circles. look at our courts, some people dont want the 10 commandments in court rooms because they say that it imposes religious ideologies on them, while the next person has every right to hang the 10 commandments in the court room.
vauge said:Where do we get our rights? From the creator, certainly not from the governement. And not from the Constitution.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So, how can we as a free declared nation, claim to have any rights without that creator that gave them to us?
Taking the creator (regardless of religion) out of schools would be denying our equal rights. Would it not?
alex said:The Supreme Court never ruled that people could not pray in public schools. This is bad information someone passed on to you and now you are passing it on to others. The court ruled that teachers could not lead prayers. It is perfectly fine and legal for a student to pray on their own. Read the ruling yourself instead of listening to Christian myth and propaganda.
Melchior said:There is a quarrel in this country over the issue of Separation of Church and State.
Some people believe the idea is clearly written in the Constitution and means we must have a secular government in order to remain free. Some people believe Separation of Church and State is a myth.
To those who think the idea is a myth: Why are you trying so hard to disprove it? Even if this constitutional law did not exist is it really such a bad idea? Do you want a theocracy?
It's the principle of the matter...nkgupta80 said:he never did the same thing over and over again. He did different things over and over again, to get the desired result.
Real_American15 said:It's the principle of the matter...
FiremanRyan said:i realize this, thats why i meant it hypothetically. with that said (as long as you brought it up), there have been instances where students were not allowed to openly pray in public schools, so even if i meant it literally, i dont see how it would be "Christian myth and propaganda".
alex said:If a person is not allowed to openly pray in school, they need to contact the ACLU and it will be cleared up. It is Christian myth and propaganda because there are Christians who want people to believe the right to pray is being taken away. They say that to people so they will think their rights are being removed. Then the people will push for more religion and government mixing. The fact is that no Supreme Court ruling has ever stated that a person cannot pray. It just cannot be imposed on anyone.
Shamgar said:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?