Dave Hanson:

Article IV, Section 2 says the citizens of each state are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of any state and the nation.  Amendment XIV says no state may abridge  the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.  Altogether they suggest that the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom would prevent Utah from establishing a Mormon theocracy because non-Mormons living in Utah, or just visiting, cannot be treated as second-class citizens or subjected to religious discrimination.  I think the founding fathers back in 1789 were strongly committed to secular government and religious freedom, and so were the original thirteen states that ratified the constitution

Religious freedom is so precious - I can't imagine being a woman in Afghanistan or living in another oppressive country.  Our "secular" governmental practices do not prohibit any form of religion that doesn't endanger or illegally remove others' rights.  We are SO fortunate to live in America.  I am grateful that the freedom of religion is a privilege extended to all states and to all localities throughout our great country!

What if your religion was in the minority and you could not follow your religious practices?  We Episcopalians are very comfortable with NOT proselytizing so it is easy for me to say that religion is a personal matter and freedom does not mean imposing my beliefs on others' children and my neighbors and fellow Roanokers... and I suppose that is one difference that distinguishes me from the evangelicals.  I do relish the diversity of cultures and religions in our country and in Roanoke.  I cherish my religion and my church but I would never diminish a devout faith-filled fellow citizen who lives a life of responsible compassion, but happens to make sense of their purpose and finds meaning in life through a different set of "educated guesses" to quote Gip - regarding deity and who are the most enlightened prophets...

One refugee family with whom I have worked talked about how the star on Mill Mountain was like the Statue of Liberty to their family who had escaped terrible injustices in Afghanistan.  The things we take for granted!!! 

Harlan Miller:

Secularism is not irreligious or anti-religious, it is a theory of government that hold that religion must be kept apart from politics.

Success!!!  I knew if I heaved enough missiles, sooner or later one of them would find Harlan's noggin.  It may have bounced off Dave first, but I'll count it nonetheless.  Thanks, Harlan.  We may disagree on several issues (okay, maybe more than several), but I am an American and I fully support your right to disagree with me.  I will even promise to always consider the possibility that you could be right and I could be wrong. 

Harlan Miller:

our constitution, unlike those of France, Mexico, Turkey, and probably others, does not explicitly require secularism.

True, but could we not say that it implicitly requires it?

Harlan Miller:

"Allah" is just the arabic word equivalent to the English "god."  The god Muslims worship is the god who revealed himself to Abraham and Moses, and who sent Jesus as an especially chosen prophet.

Many who claim no formal affiliation with any religion also claim to believe in that same god, but claiming it doesn't make it so.  If we accept the theory of the existence of that "god," then we must also accept the possibility that he (I say "he" because we are referring to a specific entity)  has revealed an acceptable plan for his worship.  If he has revealed a plan, it might behoove those who claim to follow him to make sure the plan they are following lines up with this god's plan.  Looking at sources from before the eighth century might be a good place to start.

Harlan Miller:

In the Koran Jews and Christians are described as 'peoples of the book' and are to be protected

Perhaps they do not understand the word "protect" in the same sense we do, sort of like how I see secularism as a belief system and Dave does not.  Words mean different things to different people and this lack of communication causes much of mankind's strife does it not?  In one of the classic lines from the movie, "Cool Hand Luke," Strother Martin’s prison warden character accurately assesses the deteriorating relationship between himself and prisoner Paul Newman as a "failure to communicate." Lack of communication is a foible of the human condition, and what one person says is not necessarily what the next person hears. I believe this is true with respect to our understanding of the seemingly clear words of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. 

Ricky:

If I can't type former vice president Cheney's first name, I know that won't get past the filters! 

I discovered that on about our second week when I tried to reply to a post by one of our panelists.  Had to call him mister -- I forget his last name because he hasn't posted in a while.  Also, you might have called the former VP by his formal name of "Richard," but I suspect that would have dignified him a little more than you were willing.   I believe a closer rendition of Country Joe's exact word(s) to the crowd might be, "WhatzatSPELL?!"   For those too young to follow Dave and me here, go to youtube and type in Country Joe and Woodstock.  While you're there you can also check out Hendrix, Joan Baez, Canned Heat, Richie Havens, and all the others.  Then you'll have a better handle on why my generation is so -- well -- why it is like it is.  You'll also have some tunes in your head that you'll be singing in your sleep for weeks.

 Dr. Dave and/or Clonnie, you both are mighty smart in this area, and I am trying to get my pea brain wrapped around this Common law, and Statutory law thing. As I read stuff, I find the consensus is our Country was founded on Common law, where as an injury must take place before a law is actually broken. Statutory law, has evolved from the Legislative branch making 'statutes' to our laws already on the books, and are permanent. Doesn't this make the Legislative branch the most powerful branch, by tilting the scales of power the Legislative way? Hepp muh. Gip

Cheryl and Clonnie.  Thanks for your kind remarks.  There are so many interesting posts each week that I find myself "drawn" to the computer, a "first" for me.  It used to be that I only turned it on every day or two for e-mail or if I had to get out a student evaluation for a school or parent.  Now, I can hardly wait to see and learn.  It's a privilege to be a part of this group but will have to admit that most of the time, I feel totally inadequate.  You guys really do deserve A's.

Betty

I may have gotten off track a little in some preceeding posts so lest anyone misunderstand, I want to reiterate that I do not want government support of any religious activity whatsoever.  In fact, I believe that I have taken a more stringent position than any panelist who has posted so far, because I also want to bar the Secular Humanists from having their views freely accepted and promoted by the government.  I know they'll deny that they are a religion, but that's the insidiousness of it -- they sneak their religion in under the radar and America winds up supporting and promoting humanism's god to the exclusion of all others, all the while claiming to be a pluralistic society.

I heard that sigh, Dave.

Gibson Brown:

Doesn't this make the Legislative branch the most powerful branch, by tilting the scales of power the Legislative way?

No way, Gip, because five judges can nullify any action of the legislature, while it takes a two thirds vote in a roundabout, drawn out and convoluted process for the legislature to overcome a Supreme Court ruling.  Even FDR, with all his power and political pull, was stymied by the Supreme Court, because he couldn't get enough legislators to consistently support him against the Court. 

Edward Lyons:

The problem arises when certain people complain that certain other people have violated their rights. Which, had not the Christian Right spent the last 30 years trying to cram their religion down the throats of non-religionists, I don't think we would have to endure such a climate of grievance today. But the grievance cannot be mended by legislation. I have not read the proposed legislation, & shouldn't have to, since the First Amendment clause clearly prohibits the promulgation of laws of this nature.

 Edward,

A great post on the background of this issue.  I respectfully disagree with your statement in the last paragraph about the Christian right.  While there has been some "high pressure" on the right, I think the issue is really being forced by the atheist who want no mention or recognition of any religion.  Otherwise, outstanding and informative post.

 Clonnie..."No way, Gip, because five judges can nullify any action of the legislature, while it takes a two thirds vote in a roundabout, drawn out and convoluted process for the legislature to overcome a Supreme Court ruling.  Even FDR, with all his power and political pull, was stymied by the Supreme Court, because he couldn't get enough legislators to consistently support him against the Court."

Clonnie, I have Purple Haze syndrome to add to my many maladies. Gip 

*Could be a result of reading the Sports page only when younger, and 'that girl' we mention from time to time when younger.

This section of the first amendment has two distinct parts:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion… is intended to prevent the establishment of a state or mandated religion.
• or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... further means that Congress is not to prohibit or impede the free exercise or practice of religion.

We should note that this amendment specifically states "Congress." It says nothing about the Executive or Judicial branches of government. Our constitution clearly assigns to Congress the duty and responsibility for making laws. When our Judicial branch seeks to make law or expand on existing laws by a broad interpretation of the Constitution, they are exceeding the powers given to them by the Constitution.

The tenth amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This should further limit the powers of the federal government to only those powers explicitly granted to it by the constitution.

I believe our nation was founded on Christian principles and, as a Christian, I believe prayer should be offered in Jesus name. However I do not deny Jewish, Muslim or other religions the right to pray as they believe. I also believe it is right and proper to seek Divine help and guidance in any endeavor, including public meetings. I think the persons offering prayer should pray as they think proper, and to prohibit them is "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. I do not think religious displays in public buildings violate this Amendment and they should be allowed, but certainly not financed by government money. Our founding fathers intended to say that Congress (and the government as a whole) should refrain from governance of religion.

 Marvin is tuned in...

         "We should note that this amendment specifically states "Congress." It says nothing about the Executive or Judicial branches of government. Our constitution clearly assigns to Congress the duty and responsibility for making laws. When our Judicial branch seeks to make law or expand on existing laws by a broad interpretation of the Constitution, they are exceeding the powers given to them by the Constitution"

Marvin, this is such fascinating stuff, I can't believe it is just now fascinating to me. Your last sentence "Our founding fathers intended to say that Congress (and the government as a whole) should refrain from governance of religion" seems to be the crux of the debate, and where the interpretation comes into play. I so respect you people for taking the time to grasp this subject. I have some studying to do is my firm grasp of the obvious. Thanks, I love reading the many opinions. Gip

 Good Monday morning to all and Happy Victoria Day to our Canadien citizens !  What does the First Amendment mean when it states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.. "

Since we are still in the United States of America I will preface my remarks with a couple of phrases in The Declaration of Indepenence of the Thirteen Colonies, July 4, 1776.   "... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... ", and " 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. "  First, what did Thomas Jefferson mean when he used the phrase "Nature's God"? There has been much debate over that term for several centuries and no clear definition has ever been reached.  But we do know that Jefferson felt that religion was a deeply private matter.  Moreover the phrase indicated that all religious beliefs were respected and that our society could coexist peacefully with different religions because the emphasis is on morality rather than a specific belief.  Second, Jefferson did not say "endowed by their God" but said "endowed by their Creator" which could embrace any race, religion or origin. This is exactly what I believe that religion is a private matter not a legal matter and is none of your business.  However, in the public domain, I would not frown on practicing what Don McNeill of the radio show The Breakfast Club used to do back in 1948, when I was eleven years old, and heard him say to his audience  "Each in his own words and each in his own way, for a world united in peace, let us pray."

AMEN

Marvin Foster:

I believe our nation was founded on Christian principles

Upon what uniquely Christian principles was the United States of American founded in 1789?  The word "principles" (plural) implies two or more.  We'll make it easier for you.  Can you name just one?

Clonnie Yearout:

I also want to bar the Secular Humanists from having their views freely accepted and promoted by the government.  I know they'll deny that they are a religion, but that's the insidiousness of it -- they sneak their religion in under the radar and America winds up supporting and promoting humanism's god to the exclusion of all others, all the while claiming to be a pluralistic society.

Those evil secular humanists are all at a secret meeting in an undisclosed location, plotting the insidious destruction of American society by preserving the natural environment and worshiping Satan, so I will speak for Dave (dogs being excluded from the meetings).  First, Clonnie, could you please help my humble canine brain understand what or who is "humanism's god" and how that god is being exulted to the exclusion of all others.  Second, are you suggesting that America is not a pluralistic society?

Clonnie Yearout:

No way, Gip, because five judges can nullify any action of the legislature, while it takes a two thirds vote in a roundabout, drawn out and convoluted process for the legislature to overcome a Supreme Court ruling.

There you go again (Ronald Reagan's famous phrase), arguing with the ghost of John Marshall.  Evidently you want a rubber-stamp judiciary, but unfortunately for you that is not what the founding fathers created.  You can write an amicus brief to Ghost Justice Marshall and see if the Court will reverse its ruling in the case of Marbury v. Madison; or you can accept the fact that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the constitution and serve as a "check and balance" on the other two branches of the federal goverment. 

Do we sense a pattern here?  The founding fathers were brilliant men who created a perfect form of government--when it pleases you--and a frustratingly flawed government when you are displeased.  Evidently you desire to be King of America (and an absolute monarch, not a constitutional monarch).  We suspect you would be a pretty good king, at least as good as George III of England was, but we prefer a secular, constitutional democracy with an elected president and congress, and an independent judiciary.