My daughter's Second Protest 2 nd

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 21 - 40 of total 50 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Oct 1, 2009 - 01:48am PT
Mrtrophy

Your daughter holds a sign saying "Preachers of hate go home".

Who are these "Preachers of hate" ..... ?
up2top

Big Wall climber
Phoenix, AZ
Oct 1, 2009 - 01:49am PT
Ken -- thanks for making irrelevant comments. Any info about the origin of this "separation of church and state" stuff MrTropy is talking about?

Ed
tooth

Trad climber
Kelowna, BC
Oct 1, 2009 - 02:05am PT
The US is really weird. I come from Canada, and I was surprised to see so much religion on people's bumper stickers, US flags in church, christian fish symbols, people saying God bless you, people praying or making a deal of prayer in government, etc.

I prefer separation, I think it is right. But I pray. And I always feel that posting a sign and shouting comes across as anti-praying which I disagree with for me and my family, instead of pro-separation which I agree with for me and my country.

Think I'll move back home now...
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Oct 1, 2009 - 02:15am PT
Like it or not, christianity and the plight of the protestants play a huge role in the history and traditions of American culture. Whether it shoudl in the future is up to everyone, but you can't dispute that the mayflower was just dropping off a bunch of bored people.
apogee

climber
Oct 1, 2009 - 02:40am PT
Props for Mrtropy's kids, and for a dad who cares enough to educate his kids!

"I'm a bit troubled at the politicization of you kids, dude."

bluering, your hypocrisy is showing. Again. I'll bet a case of Heiny that you would have sung a different tune if they were walking around with 'I love Jeebus' or 'Lodi is a Christian Community' signs.
fareastclimber

Big Wall climber
Hong Kong, but live in Wales...
Oct 1, 2009 - 05:46am PT
Nice one, I think that's a great thing for your child to want to be actively engaged in political issues at a young age. In contrast, I was encouraged around that age to get involved with children's rights advocacy, but ended up having no real interest... oh well!
mrtropy

Trad climber
Nor Cal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 1, 2009 - 08:33am PT
We lost- for now but we tried

Wbraun-read carefully and you will find the name

My daughter and her friend from the Local paper.
Last Names removed


Holding a sign with the words "Preachers of hate: Go home" 11-year-old Joseph marched with his friend, 11-year-old Sophia .

"We want to show that things in church shouldn't be done in the government or in the public," Phillips said.

Both agreed a moment of silence would be acceptable.

"What if Muslims go, and they feel like they are betraying their God?" Sophia said.

Proud Dad
mojede

Trad climber
Butte, America
Oct 1, 2009 - 09:54am PT
up2top, here you go:

Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.


The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”
artmusicsouth

climber
VA
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:17am PT
A bit off topic but related:

There is a great book out there that discusses this whole topic from a scholarly perspective. It is "In Search of Christian America." It really is a response to all the Christians who think America is a Christian nation. The book is written but folks who are Christians but have a very balanced perspective and bring interesting insights into the discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/Search-Christian-America-Mark-Noll/dp/0939443155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254406282&sr=8-1

Here is a review that gets at the books content:



"This very interesting book is aimed at evangelical Christians but can be read profitably by individuals of any faith, including those who lack religous faith. The 3 authors are all distinguished historians of American religion and also committed evangelical Christians. The goal of this polemic is to rebut ideas popular among evangelicals that the USA was founded as "Christian Nation," that our founding documents are extensions of biblical scripture, and that there has been a recent falling away of the USA from its Christian past. While this book was written approximately 20 years ago, these ideas continue to be popular. As conservative evangelicals have assumed a larger role in political life, there are increasing attempts to move these ideas out of the conservative evangelical Christian community. Some of the proponents of these ideas quoted in this book, like Tim LaHaye and Jerry Falwell, will be familiar from their contemporary roles in political life. Others, like James Dobson, have attained prominence more recently, but espouse doctrines essentially identical to the ones discussed in Search for Christian America.
Noll, Hatch, and Marsden base their critique on two planks. One is simply that the "Christian Nation" version of American history, particularly the early history of the republic, is wrong. Reflecting a large volume of outstanding scholarship, including some produced by the authors, Noll, Hatch, and Marsden, emphasize the relatively modest role that explicitly Christian thought had in the founding of the republic. Indeed, as they point out, some of the most explicitly Christian features of the Revolutionary period, such as Protestant anti-Catholic bigotry, are some of the least attractive features of this period of American life.
The second plank of this critique is theological in nature. The authors produce a cogent set of warnings about indiscriminate entangling of Christianity with nationalism and uncritical patriotism. They argue well that such entanglements can be detrimental to correct Christian action. As they stress, this criticism is hardly novel, indeed, some of the argument is based on the writings of notable American Protestant leaders like Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, Jonathan Edwards,and Samuel Hopkins. Noll, Hatch, and Marsden are not arguing that evangelical Christians should withdraw from public life or that religously motivated concerns are illegitimate in public life. Quite the opposite, but they stress that such action should be based on truthful understanding of American history and rigorous theological thinking.
This short book is written clearly, referenced well, and is backed by the impressive knowledge of the authors. Its a pity its not read more widely."
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 1, 2009 - 12:47pm PT
Bluring - at issue is an invocation of "The Lord's Prayer" at the start of city council meetings.

Finally somebody posted what this is all about....

I'd have to say that I agree it's probably inappropriate, but unconstitutional? I doubt it. The constitution (as I understand it) refers to the Federal gov't (Congress) not establishing /promoting religion.

If a city council CHOOSES to do so, is that unconstitutional? There would have to be a State law prohibiting that, right?

If some of the council members objected, that's different.

And for the record, I'm generally opposed to people proselytizing, whether they have the right to or not. It's just inappropriate and somewhat a betrayal of the public freedom.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 1, 2009 - 01:35pm PT
DMT, the 1st Amendment is pretty clear that The Congress shall make no laws promoting or denying the free expression of religion.

Only if the city council was compelling someone to participate would it be unconstitutional.

Just because a Gov't official in a gov't building mutters something religious, doesn't violate the seperation clause. This clause has been misinterpreted to mean that anything religious cannot come into contact with anything governmental. That ain't the case.

mrtropy

Trad climber
Nor Cal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 1, 2009 - 02:21pm PT
Yep Lots of Pakistani- my last class was 40% Pakistani Muslims-

Coverage in local paper here. Comments are the best part.

http://lodinews.com/articles/2009/10/01/news/1_prayer_091001.txt#feedback


Better explanation of issue here
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091001/A_NEWS/910010345
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 1, 2009 - 02:38pm PT
a RULE for the Lord's Prayer

Then it's wrong. You should have mentioned that earlier.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 1, 2009 - 03:05pm PT
Yeah, you could have.

Having a rule, which implies a mandate, to say a prayer is different than just 'starting every meeting with a prayer', which implies a willful consent.

...but now we're just splitting hairs.
mrtropy

Trad climber
Nor Cal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 1, 2009 - 11:29pm PT
Since the prayer has been open to all faiths a Satanist has already emailed and asked to pray before a meeting. He is a local resident and has emailed all of the council and the city attorney. Gotta Love the way things turn out sometimes.
up2top

Big Wall climber
Phoenix, AZ
Oct 1, 2009 - 11:45pm PT
The "separation of church and state" phrase is no where in the Constitution, nor any where else within the Bill of Rights. Feel free to look for it. You won't find it, though most of us have been taught -- incorrectly -- to believe that this wording is the basis for disallowing the slightest mention of praise toward a supreme being if it is uttered by a public official.

The first time this phrase appeared was in a letter from by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, in response to their fears that they would be discriminated against as a minority religion in Connecticut at the time. The religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

This metaphor was later used as the basis for the formulation of the "establishment clause" in the Constitution as part of the 1st amendment -- 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.

Those of you who insist that government officials have no right to include prayer in public ceremonies or official duties, or to use public property in the celebration of a religious ceremony conveniently disregard the true intent of the establishment clause and flagrantly IGNORE the part of the clause that states "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

The establishment clause gives you the freedom OF religion. It most certainly DOES NOT give you the right to freedom FROM religion or religious expressions.


Ed


wack-N-dangle

Gym climber
the ground up
Oct 1, 2009 - 11:50pm PT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA7iGxV6rt4
mrtropy

Trad climber
Nor Cal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 2, 2009 - 12:08am PT
My mom was teaching when they played in our town at the high school and soon afterward wrote that song. They were stuck here just overnight.

Is Up2top real or someone playing a right wing nut as a joke- a thin line between reality and humor. A good character much like Borat. I love it!!!

up2top

Big Wall climber
Phoenix, AZ
Oct 2, 2009 - 12:32am PT
Good that you like it. There's plenty more where that came from!

So, would you desire to prohibit the satanist from praying before these meeting? How about a Muslim? See -- that's the silly part. The ACLU fervently goes after limiting expressions of Christianity, but then file lawsuits to defend Muslim's rights to worship at similar venues under the same circumstances. So, are your opposed to all religious expression in your town council meetings? Or just the Christians?

Ed
mrtropy

Trad climber
Nor Cal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 2, 2009 - 12:42am PT
If you can not figure that out from my posts the way I think, I feel sorry for you.

Wait another Joke- you are too sharp for me. You had me fooled for a minute. You are great!! LOL Watch out Sacha Baron Cohenn.
Messages 21 - 40 of total 50 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta