The First Amendment, backed up by the Supreme Court, the folks who decided these cases, as the Constitution established them to do.

The Constitution protects the minority from the majority. That is the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights.

If the majority votes that owning people as slaves is legal, does that make it any more right to do so?

Wrong. I asked where it said "If the government allows one group to place a monument, but denies another group the same privillage, it is showing favoritism, which is not allowed."

1st Amendment says nothing about that. The Supreme Court HAS indeed said that the GOVERNMENT cannot show favoritism (Souter in '94, I believe) - but WITHIN the framework of the government's purview. A public referrendum (which is the case I originally presented) has nothing to do with the government and any favoritism thereof. As such, the point of government favoritism is irrelevent.Umm, of course. What's your point?

The Bill of Rights does indeed protect the minority from the majority - IN SPECIFIC WAYS. In no way does the Bill of Rights even remotely suggest that the display of any religious imagery whatsoever is an infringment upon anyone's rights. As such, this point is also irrelevent.Erm, no. Why? Because that is something that is actually in the Constitution. Try the 14th Amendment for starters.

I do find it quite odd that you'd find a parallel between the public voting to display religious symbology and slavery, however.

Yet, one is Constitutionally prevented. The other is not. Just because the rights of the minority are protected doesn't mean they have whatever rights they want.

In my opinion anyone who is sworn into office should be forced to sign a document stating they will not let their religious beliefs influence their decisions. But that's just me, The Hellenic Polytheist who's tired of christians controlling everything.

The first amendment you say?

"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."

Where in that - which is the entire text - state that there must be a seperation between religion and government? It says that government cannot DICTATE religion to the people - which is clearly understood. However, the idea that somehow religion must be EXCLUDED from governemnt is something else entirely! Thats my question - where does it state that religion is to be EXCLUDED from government?

Oh - and Rilder - trying to get to a spot where a leader is not allowed to use his own moral and yes - religious convictions - is not only impossible psycologically - it is also a blatently unconstitutional act in that it would be government (of the people, etc) thus PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE thereof.

For those who are offended at the HISTORICAL presence of xtian symbology (and there is alot of pagan symbology in our history as well) - your FREE to not look - and FREE to be offended if you do.

The part about free exercise covers it. When you require that people either participate in (required school prayer) or support (public funding or public lands) your religion, you are removing their right to freely practice their own religion, or their right to freely not practice yours.

I half, or even 3/4 agree with you. But you lost me at public land.

In the US "public" does not necessarily mean "government". While the government does hold the land in what is called a public trust, the public retains the right to democratically control the usage of many lands.

And to get a bit more circular about it, the public is democratically ruled, i.e. protected from the tyranny of the majority and therefore forbidden to favor one religion over another, which can be taken to say that expressions of one religion over another on public land is denied.

Man, I feel like we should all be in the Supreme Court chambers debating this. :know:

No doubt. :yep:

This is a good one, and is one of the reasons that I worry the Constitution is a tad broken. Good point though, even though I don't think I agree.

Perhaps public lands was the wrong way to phrase that. Government offices, places of business, etc. Courthouses, post offices, areas where the government does what the government does.

I don't have a problem with an employee hanging a cross in their cubicle, or having a Bible on their desk, or displaying a Star of David on the wall.

However, if the manager of the office buys a cross out of the office budget, or buys Bibles with government money to hand out to employees, or something to that effect, it is a problem. I also don't have a problem with a group that obtains permission to put up a religious display in front of the courthouse, provided that any other religious group is given the same permission, without regard to what religion they are. If a Christian group is given permission to display a monument, and an Islamic group is denied permission to display a monument _because_ they are Muslim, there is a problem. If the Muslims are denied permission because their monument consists of a collection of pictures, then there isn't a problem.

The First Amendment, plus Supreme Court rulings. The latter are just as important as the former.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment means separation of church and state. Therefore, you can't just base your argument on the exact text of the Amendment, because the Supreme Court has said a lot more than that.

As an agnostic, I do believe that the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is offensive. A courtroom is a place where all should appear equal before the law, and I feel that displaying the Commandments indicates preference for those who believe in them. Yes, some of the Commandments are part of our law, but some aren't. The First Commandments states that one must believe in the Judeo-Christian God, and only that God. That's not American law, and it has no place in a courtroom.

Similarly, I don't like having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't believe that we are under God. Why should I have to lie to pledge allegiance to my country?

Well said, Max!

You might be interested to know that the original pledge didn't have "under God" in it. That was added in 1954.

Me, I'm against loyalty oaths of any kind. What kind of free society requires a 'Pledge of Allegiance'?

As I said before, while it's true that the Bill of Rights only pertains to interference by the Federal Government, subsequent amendments have extended Federal authority to protect peoples rights to cover the states. While some like to argue the specific wording over the intent, I tend to agree with the above summation: Having a religious symbol or document (such as the Ten Commandments) placed on a government building is pure and simple a case of Government promoting a single religion over another.

James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, didn't even want prayers in congress. He felt that if congress wanted chaplains to conduct prayers they should pay for them out of their own pockets, not the taxpayers'.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...ligions64.html

Some more of Madison's writings on the subject:
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Even having the flag flying over government buildings is a new thing. The US flag was created because naval warships always sail under a national flag. The founders never mentioned the flag flying anywhere in public places, and it's my opinion that they would be appalled at the way modern Americans 'worship' their country.

I can conceed the point of not having religious imagery on places such as courthouses, although I do not believe such imagery is representative of anything but the basis of the majority who wrote the law.

However, I find the line crossed when groups attempt to ban personal prayer in schools, prevent the president from mentioning God in the Oath of Office, etc.

I have no problems with people praying in school, as long as participation is voluntary, and they do not make a nuisance of themselves. (Find an area where you can gather and do it, don't do it in the middle of a hallway when people are trying to pass.) I also have no problem if someone wishes to say "So help me God" after an oath, so long as they do so of their own free will. If you force someone to swear an oath to a god they do not believe in, does that make their oath any more binding?

The key part here is that people are participating in these actions of their own will, not because the majority passed a law saying they had to do it.

Fun fact of history: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister. He didn't see a need to mention God in it. He also happened to be a socialist.

Personal prayer in schools? Praying out loud in a classroom is just as disruptive as talking, and goes against the biblical injunction against praying in public places just for show. Teacher-led class prayer is indeed government mandated religious activity and exclusionary to anyone who believes differently than the majority. I believe the usual catch-phrase is "Tyranny of the masses".

The mention of God in the oath of office is not written that way. If the incoming officer wishes to include it that's his business. Has there been an attempt to make it illegal? I see it as insidious that some people try to say that an official is "Un-American" if he doesn't use the phrase. It goes directly against the Constitutional limitation "No Religious Test".

Whoa, slow down: who said anything about praying out loud?Yes, the Freedom From Religion folks have attempted twice to sue to prevent Presidents from using God when taking the oath, along with the prayer, claiming it was exlusionary among other things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...123002858.html