[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Steve - the link is in regards to the constitution. The fact is that a seperation of church and state does in fact exist - and I have not said that it is not a proper thing. Specifically - it should exist to keep government from mandating ANY religion. I have said as much repeatedly - there is a difference to it "not being in the constitution" and it "not being"....

The seperation of church and state is founded on a letter to the Danbury Baptists - a PRIVATE letter - that was used to justify a legal ruling.

And I've shown that it was used repeatedly by the man who wrote the first amendment. He obvoiously believed that was what it meant.

Now you can lump anything in with "those evangelicals" or "those gays" or "those (insert your target here)" all you want - but your painting a with a broad brush that is intentionally generalizing.

You're afraid of people trying to use that to remove all traces of religion from American life. I'm with you on that. On the other hand every time I've heard someone using the "no separation" phrase they've been pushing an agenda. You seem to be the only one who means it differently. Why should I believe you, other than that I'm willing to give anyone the benifit of the doubt?

I will say it again - has she said "under the Christian god" then I would be right there with you saying she was wrong.

But she did say it. The fact that she didn't say it there is what has people up in arms. She's lying.

But there is a difference. The terms used - as has been pointed out - were very deist - which in fact most of the "Founding Fathers" were.

I'm glad we agree on that. And I'm not intentionally generalizing, I'm speaking of the most outspoken leaders - the ones who make the most noise and seem to speak for the majority, even if they don't. They are also the ones whom people listen to.

As for the issue of Buddhas in the courtroom - I personally wouldn't care. If I did have an issue with it - there are options. First - make sure the judge isn't re-elected - and also appeal IF and only IF the law was not followed. What statue is in the room matters not one bit to the legal ruling - and if it does - then the ruling isn't going to stand. Simple enough.
Also - an elected official has an office - but taxpayer money pays for it, taxpayer business is done in it - and taxpayers often see officials in their office. So what is the difference between that and a courtroom? Both are accessible to, serve and are paid for by the taxpayer. Careful with your answer though - because if you say ok remove every religious icon in government buildings - then your also saying a religious person could not bring a token of faith to their work - and that infringes on their right to worship as they see fit.

And that is a tough question. No, people should never be prohibited from demonstrating their faith in the open, as long as it doesn't intrude on anybody's rights. That can be a thorny question itself. My only answer is to refer to Jefferson.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes On The State Of Virginia

You see - its a 2 edged sword..... Lets say you did have a judge that wanted to have a statue of Buddha on his wall. Ok - then his clerk wants to bring in a small Cross mounted on a stand. Maybe the court recorder wants to have something else on her little desk. Where do you stop - or do you? Does it matter what each of them does as long as they do the work of the people as they are duty bound to by law and terms of employment?

I believe the courtroom itself, as a public place paid for by the taxpayers, should be free of all religious symbols. Though the Judge's office is also provided by the taxpayers, that is not a public place, but a private office. If a Church wants to have a cross, that is their business and nobody elses. If someone wants to put a cross or anything else over a public school, that is a violation of the concept.

People want to talk about how Xtians want to take over and remake government - and a few loonies do. And I will stand with you to stop them when I see the idiocy- but the lunacy has to stop when it comes to the rabid FEAR of any religion having any impact on governance... If it were not for religion - this country would not exist - because most of the settling of this country was an attempt to find religious freedom. Meaning you practice your thing - I'll practice mine, and we live and let live. But instead you have people who want to make sure no one can practice anything on "public" grounds. Well public means yours and mine and the other guys too - and last I checked you weren't to tell me what to do any more than I am to tell you. What is good for the goose is good for the gander....

I agree about standing against loonies, no matter what fringe they're from. But as for finding religious freedom, most of the colonies were started as business enterprises, mostly planting. Massachussetts was founded by a group seeking religious freedom, which to them meant escape from the established Church of England and finding a place where they could establish their own Presbyterian Church. And they drove out anyone who preached religious freedom. This included Roger Williams, who was the only contemporary religious leader who did practice true tolerance, and he ended up founding Rhode Island. Interesting that he called his capital 'Providence', a decidedly non-specific term. The history of Christianity in early America is not one of religious tolerance. It took Enlightenment types like Jefferson to go against the grain and push laws guaranteeing freedom. And the religious leaders of his own day branded him an Atheist.

As for practicing in a public place, I used to attend a church that met in a local park. I thought it was a great setting, and I see not problem with anybody meeting anywhere public. I do, however, have a problem with the government, whether federal, state or local, using taxpayer money to put up religious symbolism.