Church and State - Stick to it!

Clif,

The Thread was about the teaching Evolution and a teacher injected his opinion on religion and God into the lesson. That is what I am trying to reply too.

The link below discusses the both First Amendment and Evolution in schools:

http//:www.dicovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index_php?command=view&id-2543

Grace

 

The link below is a letter regarding the teaching of Evolution:

http//:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1899

I am unsure what the Johnston County School Board's ruling is on this subject.

Grace

Having trouble Posting...........................is someone trying to tell me something?

 

Clif,

I do not believe that any government building can display any "one" religion's items whatsoever!

Below is a copy and paste from the link above it. We have discussed this before and my stance on this issue stands the same. If you would change yours I might be inclined to "try" to change mine.

Grace

Warning: Post is long for those who cannot access at work. For others, click the link.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

Separation of Church and State

Introduction
Problems with the term "church and state:"

Although this term is in near universal use throughout North America, it can be confusing. The principle actually involves separation of religion, not just churches, from the government.
The principal religion in western hemisphere has been Christianity since the 16th century; it continues to be the choice of about 75% of the U.S. and Canadian adult populations. But, "religion" in the U.S. involves much more than Christian Churches; it includes:
Churches, circles, groves, gurdwaras, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc., and the organizations of which they are a part. Solitary practitioners of an organized religion. People who consider themselves religious, but are not affiliated with any specific group. Humanists, secularists, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. all of whom have specific religious beliefs. Although some would consider them non-religious, if you ask an Agnostic what their religion is, they will probably reply "Agnostic." Many lawsuits about the entanglement of religion and government have involved conflicts between Christian churches or denominations and state laws and regulations. But there have been some major cases involving other religions:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Florida municipality and decided that followers of the Santeria religion could engage in animal sacrifices, as long as the killing was humanely done. A Supreme Court case which involved Native American Spiritual practices triggered a whole series of federal religious freedom laws which reduced the power of governments to interfere in religious matters. A 2005-MAY decision of the Supreme Court guaranteed the freedom of prison inmates to practice their religion. Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy -- a conservative Christian group -- commented: "It is a sign of the times, I suppose that it took a Witch and a Satanist to secure the rights of inmates to worship." The term "separation of religion and state" would be a much less confusing term. It would be more accurate. It might not be as troublesome to Christians as "church and state" which can imply that there is some sort of a vendetta oppressing Christianity. However, "separation of church and state" is firmly imbedded in the culture, and so we will generally use it here.
Historical integration of church and state:

For the past 2 millennia, in most countries, church and state had been either linked or actually merged:
England has recognized the Church of England as their official religion for centuries. The queen is the head of the church. Changes in church policies must be approved by the House of Lords. The 19th Century Russian government had an alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church; after the revolution, Atheism became the new official "religion." They have since made strides to again give the Russian Orthodox Church special status. The German government collects religious taxes from the public, and transfers them to the main Protestant and Catholic churches. The government also substantially finances these churches out of state funds. The American colonies had largely followed that principle as well. There were many examples of religious discrimination written into the constitutions of various states during the years following the revolutionary war. Typical laws:
Established a loyalty oath for legislators and government employees, requiring them to believe in the Trinity, and/or the divine inspiration of the Bible. Prohibited clergy from holding office. Required legislators to be Protestant Christians. Permitted the state to support the Christian religion from general tax revenue. Granted religious and other human rights only to Christians, or only to theists. Specified "The Protestant Religion" (whatever that meant) to be the established religion of the state. Required citizens to observe the weekly Sabbath or Lord's day.
Religious freedom in Virginia:

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson was concerned about the power of the Church of England within Virginia. He felt a guarantee of religious freedom was the best guarantee that America would avoid the religious intolerance and religiously inspired bloodshed that had marked much of the history of Europe. He wrote an Act for Establishing Religious Freedom; after a long battle, it became law in Virginia on 1786-JAN-16. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was based in part on that act.
"Wall of Separation" between Church and State

Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:
"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."
During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion.

Church/state separation in the U.S. Constitution:

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned that European history might repeat itself in the new world. They wanted to avoid the continual wars motivated by religious hatred that had decimated many countries within Europe. They decided that a church/state separation was their best assurance that the U.S. would remain relatively free of inter-religious strife. Many commentators feel that over two centuries of relative religious peace in the U.S. have shown that they were right.
In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

"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."

This was ratified by the States in 1791.
The establishment clause of the First Amendment:

The first phrasein the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.
The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In their ruling in 1947 of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Twp", the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'." 12
Three tests have been derived from various court decisions to decide the constitutionality of laws that have a religious component:
The Lemon test: This was defined in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971. 10 To be constitutional, a law must: have a secular purpose, and be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.
The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor created this criterion: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.
The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accommodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion. 11 A simple set of criteria is that the government (and by extension public schools) may not: promote one religion or faith group over any other promote a religiously based life over a secularly based life promote a secularly based life over a religiously based life. There is some opposition, particularly among Fundamentalist Christians to this interpretation of the First Amendment by the courts. They feel that the Amendment should be interpreted literally to mean that the government may not raise any one denomination or religion to the status of an official or established religion of the country. They feel that the First Amendment contains no wording that prohibits the government from engaging in certain religious activities, like requiring prayer as part of the schedule at public schools, requiring schools, courts and government offices to post the Ten Commandments, allowing public schools to have organized prayers as an integral part of public school sports events, praying before board of education or municipal government meetings, etc.

 

Dang, Ken. One sentence at the very start said exactly what I believe and if you will notice I stated "one". Discrimination in my mind to not do all if we allow one.

Grace

 

My real thoughts on how to handle bullies:

I am a pacifist. I try to use non-violence whenever possible but if it were to come down to leaving someone to get hurt and using words I would swing my purse and feet as hard as possible. Don't pick on any one at any time.

I believe more like Golda Meir: an eye for an eye! No innocents are hurt.

No debate, no discussion, my real beliefs on that subject.

Grace

 

I did. But, you brought it up on this Thread so I thought I would clear it up on both.

Grace

 

Ken,

I give up. I am a joke and you are always right. You are the all knowing one. I will leave the grown up discussions and/or debates to you my friend because you don't want anyone else in them.

Out,
Grace

 

Ken,

See the Art/Butch Thread! We are moving to too many Threads with this.

Grace

 

Sheut...I don't know...Lawter/Holder?

I give up...You Are The Man!!!

Grace :lol:

 

i think she means the clayton political thread about the revote...

SOP. say something. when challenged, back it up with irrelevant copy and paste that actually makes the opposite point of what she's trying to say or has nothing really to do with the current topic. ignore reason. cry. post passive/aggressive sarcastic self-deprication. change the subject.

 

That's a woman for you!

Grace

 

not the ones i know.

the radical reactionary idealist ones maybe...

 

Don't know whether to say "Thank You" or "Slap" you. Anyhow, tired of questions. Want answers myself. Define a radical reactionary idealist...no never mind.

Grace

 

Exactly, I have a feeling the teacher actually tried to teach science in science class and that a student either asked him a question or tried to pose Creationism as science. If I was an instructor I would avoid the religion question like the plague, but if asked my opinion I would give it (probably watered down a bit).

 

To help clear the air.

The Constitutional protection of rights only applied to Congress in the beginning. this was changed when the 14th Ammendment was passed, whcih extended the Constitutional protections to all levels of the government.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The USSC has made many rulings concerning the divsion between church and state as is also specified in the Constitution. Thus, the current separation of church and state is Constitutional for even the local schools due to the ammendments to the Constitution and the proscribed rulings of the USSC under that Constitution. Unless one can find a statement in the Constitution giving their personal opinion on the constitutionality priority over the USSC it is a moot point.

This is also the reason I tend to cringe when people claim to want to "return" to the original intent of the Constitution which would remove the intent regarding the Constitution being modified to address changes in society. The selective nature of such ideas is always a concern for me.

 

In the context of this original discussion, the science teacher would have been correct in pointing out the Bible is incorrect from a scientific perspective on the evolution of life on the planet, in that we have sufficient evidence to show the effect and that does not correspond with the strict statements in the Bible. Thus, from the science perspective the Bible is wrong, just as would be the case of any journal relating a scientific phenomena in simple layman observations. The philosphopical or religious aspect is not part of the science class and should not be interjected. I suspect this may have been partly the case and there was something lost in the translation, but have no evidence from which to draw any real conclusion.

I believe the suggestion to speak with the teacher before drawing a conclusion is the better choice, for what it is worth.

 

I teach Science, but not evolution/biology, but somehow, the subject came up and I had a student that had very strong religious views about creation. What worked for me: I explained that there are scientific theories and religious theories about evolution/creation and that since we were in Science class, I would address the scientific approach and left it at that. I am a Christian, BTW, but I did not have to say that the Bible was right or wrong or that Science was right or wrong. I did not need to interject what my beliefs on the subject were, just discuss what common scientific thinking is right now and leave it alone.

 

Exactly. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) applied to the federal government, and not to the states. After the Civil War, the 14th amendment extended those protections to state as well as federal government action. Therefore, your argument is precisely on point.

A few posters on this forum are fond of pointing out that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution. That is true, those words are not in there. Those words, however, are an accurate description of the effect of the two clauses about religion that are in the constitution - the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" was first used by Thomas Jefferson several years after the constitution was adopted. I tend to think he was in a position to know and understand the intent of the drafters, and I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has taken that position on a number of occasions. Until such time as they overrule themselves, I believe that is still the law of the land.

 

That seems like a very reasonable and logical way to handle the issue. I'm glad to hear it works for you.