Gus wrote:

jim rozen wrote:


In article , Gunner says...



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.

You will notice it also forbids the free expression of religion. Not
to mention freedom of speech.


Good, you have the full text there. But you are still uncertain
about what it means. Your comment at the end indicates some
confusion and is flatly incorrect. Lay it out in its entirety,
the authors were quite stingy with words even if dead-on gramatically
correct:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people..."

and so on.

The first part is the 'establishment' clause. That guarantees
freedom *from* religion, the govenment cannot create state
religions. The second is the free exercise clause which gives
freedom *of* religion - they cannot ban or restrict it with laws.

Notice this stuff only applies TO THE GOVENMENT. None of this
applies to anyone else - corporations, private individuals, etc.



Im still waiting for your cites on the claim you made about :freedom


From religion:

See comments above. For further details take out a book on constituional
law. But those are the standard views of the document. You can put
whatever spin you want on the document, but if you tried to bluster your
way through a first year law class on it you would be laughed out of
the room.

Jim




That was a good explanation but I'm still confused about the freedom
From religion part. Doesn't the First Amendment say that we're free
From the establishment of a (national) religion and nothing else?

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree or that a town
can't have the 10 Commandments on public property. They always cite
this establishment thing but that's a huge stretch.

It almost seems like they have used the establishment clause to beat
down the free exercise clause.
GW



When a religious symbol or ceremony is allowed (placed by the
authorities or with specific permission of the authorities) in a
publicly owned location, it is implied that the government is condoning
the particular religion involved. There is an easy test....If the
courthouse were to put up a pentagram as a symbol of satan as well as a
list of chaos-laws from the satanic bible, would the other side be
protesting up the yazoo? Of course they would...and the argument would
be that the state was condoning and or establishing that satanism was
part of the government process.

Although more subtle, giving a moment of "silence" for prayer in school
condones and establishes that there IS such a thing as a "higher power"
to commune with. In many cases, there would be extreme pressure on the
minority (for example, a 6 year old atheist in a highly christian area)
to pretend along with the other kids in order to not be chastised for
his/her beliefs. Nothing says that you can't pray for yourself 5000
times a day, it only says that having the state make special time for it
is the same as condoning specific religions which believe in prayer as
well as the notion that there is someone/thing to pray to.

Going even further...what about religions that believe in praying via
banging cymbals and similar? Do you think any school would stand for
the clanging and banging of those student's prayers during that "prayer
minute"? Doubtful. Prayer time in schools is really about CHRISTIAN
prayer time, and is establishing a specific religion.

If you allow christmas trees (taking them as a religious symbol which
they really aren't in my opinion) and symbols/text of other religions in
public locations, you also MUST allow the same for weirder
religions...even those which most consider abhorrent like satanism,
witchcraft, (what would be considered by most to be) cults, etc. To
disallow one while allowing another is very specifically and clearly
condoning a specific religion and therefore establishing the state's
preference for that religion.

Better for all of us to allow individual freedom to worship (or not
worship) in their own way on a personal basis than to open the can of
worms of the state condoning specific religions over others. The rights
of the minority must be protected with the same zealousness as the
majority, even when that minority seems "weird" to most. The best way
to protect the rights of minority religions is just as the framers of
the constitution stated....you can't establish (condone) in any way yet
you can't stop anyone from practicing as they believe. This means that
the state, to stay COMPLETELY neutral, must also stay COMPLETELY out of
it. Freedom FROM religion when it comes to government matters. Freedom
OF religion when it comes to personal matters.

Or, if you live in rural Utah, would you rather have your kids being
pressured to follow Mormon teachings and told by the school, courts and
government that Joseph Smith probably had it right, even though you
believe differently? Maybe excerpts from the book of Mormon should be
on posted outside the courtrooms in Utah as well as pictures of Joseph
Smith appearing in schools. Maybe in Utah, they should be teaching the
Mormon view of the earth's creation as well to "balance" out that nasty
evolutionism being taught. Maybe in school in the morning, all the
Mormon's in your kid's class should be allowed to get together in a
condoned "moment of silence" to pray, leaving your kid and maybe one
other standing by the wayside and feeling pressures of being the "odd
man out". ( Mormon was just picked randomly, by the way, because of the
high percentage in one state (now just below 50% IIRC) as well as the
notion of most Christian religions that they are a cult of some kind. )

Koz