Seperation of church and state was not meant to deny religion, only to keep goverment officialls out of the moral and value judgments out of goverment policy towards the people.
THe Separation of Church and State was created and defined by Thomas Jefferson because he believed that a mix of government and religion was a poor idea. He coined the term "wall," which connotes an impasse--a barrier over which neither side can go. It was, in fact, ment to deny religion interfering with government and government interfering with religion, exceptin cases in which the religion is doing harm or if that religion interfers with the secular powers of the government.
I don't know why people artificially divide the state from morality. YOu mean "personal" morality, but not "public" morality. The State can quite justifiably delineate basic morality.
Cases such as the Southern Baptist practice of tithing 10% of your household income BEFORE tax is common in this spiritual community. The state, even if a majority was Baptist could not make that into law
Thank the godless they couldn't, or they sure as hell might.
The basis of the law was to keep spiritual text based laws out of the goverment and from being lawfully enforced on those not of that faith and belief practice. How in the world it became against any symbol such as the statues of the commandments recently is puzzling.
Because how do you think those monuments got there? The magical bible faerie? No. If it isn't through donation, it is via taxation. Forcing people to pay for religious adornements is wrong, especially if they are NOT of said religion.
I see the bible in a court too, upon wich witnesses take their oath to tell what is true. As long as a law is not forcing you into a religious practice, then what is wrong with everyone practicing their own. If the ten commandments in a court of law makes the people feel more secure within the justice system, and no one is forced to read them, believe in them, or even practice them the people there should be free to have their courts reflect a part of that belief.
Then they should make their own little donations to fund the development of their own churches. You don't use taxes to adorn a public building with religious memorabillia.
The minority then has a choice, stay and work to create change-unless the goverment labels your efforts radical and works to devalue you opinion- or find a state where a majority of the people created a law to suit your views and do not allow religious symbols in the courtroom.
If my religion were the nazi cult developed around Hitler, could I use public funds to build a giant swastika crossed with Thor's Hammer and slap it on the courts? That's a resounding no.
[quotte]
True democracy can not be only black or white, democracy seeks out and creates the states between allowing for them all to be accepted, maybe not by you personally and you too have that right. We should all have the right to be free in the laws of our land, subject only to what governs our civil behavior despite our beliefs. I do not know what is best for the people of Maine here on the west coast, if I were to get into federal politics I should not have the right to make laws governing their civil behavior. The laws may even be well intentioned geared to save them all based on my opinion, the fact may remain even then that just pehaps, they do not want to be saved.
[/quote]
So you think it's perfectly fine for the majority of education to go to hell if the majority feels it's ok to do that? Putting Creationism into the classroom will NOT improve education: it will destroy it further.
