Our universities tolerate almost anything except Christianity. Our states and localities are applying all kinds of pressures. Our courts disregard the First Amendment in their hostility to the place of religion in our public life.
Finally, Obama administration officials, including the president and secretary of state, speak of “freedom of worship” as if it were the full extent of freedom of religion. We won’t even discuss the infamous Health and Human Services “contraception mandate.”
What is the cause of this attack on freedom of religion and conscience? And how can we respond in a spirit of a commitment to principles of religious liberty?
To help us get a handle on this, let’s consider an address by James Madison to the Virginia General Assembly in 1785, in which he says religious obligations have a higher claim on our attention than political obligations.
Madison speaks of religious conscience as an “unalienable right”—the same expression used for our most basic natural rights in the Declaration of Independence. He also declares that our freedom to fulfill our duty to God must be “untrammeled” because that duty is both first and last for us.
Madison made it absolutely clear that the purpose and foundation of government is to serve rather than frustrate our natural equality and liberty. He carefully uses the phrase “Civil Society” to identify the whole community, made up of families, churches, and all sorts of organic human relations that is responsible for authorizing and limiting political authority. Civil society is the “earthly sovereign” that delegates the powers of government. But over this earthly sovereign is the “Universal Sovereign” to whom all must answer. For this reason, Madison says, religion is “exempt from the authority of the Society at large.” Much more so must it be exempt from the political authority of the government that society creates.
One of the characteristic moves of the modern secular state is the effort to push the vital institutions of civil society aside — in this case, its religious communities and the unique role they play in the lives of citizens.
Individuals of faith, joined in communities of faith, forming a civil society imbued with the many faiths of those many communities, own this country. The state’s authority comes from us, and its power — the power of our elected employees — cannot be greater than what we can rightfully give it. And we cannot give the state power over the conscience of men and women, because we do not ourselves have any right to come between God and our fellow citizens. The sooner our elected employees remember these foundational truths, the sooner we may begin to recover a healthy notion of religious freedom.
Nice summation..
Religious organizations wanting to engage in business transactions are not exempt from following ALL regulations concerning said businesses.
Boy...... that irks them doesn't it?
The whole argument from the Catholic Bishops is that they are above any regulation they disagree with because it harms their religious freedom.
What a bunch of Mularkey as our Vice President says....
Catholic Charities made the same argument then they took federal money to provide adoption services then wanted to exclude all gays from receiving their services.
They used the same tired excuse..Religious Freedom....In this case to discriminate
This is why one of many reasons why no religion should mix in government affairs.
They ALWAYS want a "Special Deal"
Rhuidean
You Wrote:The words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the US Constitution. Therefore, it is not "the law." The Establishment Clause merely prohibits the establishment of an official state religion or the prohibition of the free exercise of one's religion.
I reply: I could reply that the founders intent is clearly spelled out in numerous letters and documents. But I doubt that would sway you at all so...........
Article III of the constitution states: Begin Quote."SECTION 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." End Quote
Now this constitutionally authorized has REPEATEDLY stated that there is in fact a separation of church and state.
Here are some notable rulings"
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.
So contrary to your statement...Church state separation is most DEFINITELY the law within the united states..
There is over 50 years of Judicial precedent established on the topic.
1st part of the Debate over...You lose...
You wrote: Nobody is asking for the power of the state to support their views.
I reply...Did you read Roberts letter?
He wrote...Finally, Obama administration officials, including the president and secretary of state, speak of “freedom of worship” as if it were the full extent of freedom of religion. We won’t even discuss the infamous Health and Human Services “contraception mandate.”
He wants his religious beliefs to be law for women seeking contraception....
Finally you wrote:
And nobody is wearing "white sheets" either. your suggestion that opposition to Obama is rooted solely in racism is not a valid point. It is a very common charge levied against Conservative Christians when no facts exist to back up one's argument.
I suggest you reread posts by some of the RNT posters...They are completely racist in their opposition to President Obama....
I will repeat my argument in closing.
Worship whomever you want...Whenever you want...However you want....
No problem until you want the state to take your side and impose your beliefs on others.
Rhuidean
What people don't seem to understand is the irony of having the "keep the gov't out of my bedroom/uterus" mentality while simultaneously demanding that gov't should be forcing employers to pay for their contraceptives...
Individuals are still quite free to follow the tenets of their respective religions. Freedom of religion is not being violated in any way by this mandate as it only applies to businesses and the insurance coverage for their employees.
If religious organizations want to operate businesses, they should have to comply with regulations which apply to all other businesses. Religion isn't being singled out, isn't being attacked. It's about business and those engaged in business activities.
I reread this letter and comment section. The only ones ranting are the writer and those who go off topic to rail against President Obama.
BTW I am the only self identified atheist in this post i think.
But even so...I have no issues with your beliefs of faith...Worship as often as you like, worship whomever you like...
No issue for me....
My only objection is when any religious person advocates for the power of the state to support their views.
No...No...No...
America is secular and will remain that way. Separation of church and state is the law...
So as long as those boundaries are observed then no issue exists.
Now as to the white sheeted clique ranting about the president....
I can only say...It is what they do....No facts required...No reason or thought...
They are gonna be really really unhappy around 11PM on the 6th of November....
Or Maybe not...
They will have a reason to be angry for another 4 years and that will give them renewed purpose.
Whatever...
Rhuidean
Nobody is asking for the power of the state to support their views. And nobody is wearing "white sheets" either. your suggestion that opposition to Obama is rooted solely in racism is not a valid point. It is a very common charge levied against Conservative Christians when no facts exist to back up one's argument.
Don't like cuts in military spending? Obama blames everyone else.
Don't like paying higher taxes? Obama blames someone else.
Don't like the high price of gasoline? Obama blames everyone else.
Don't like the higher prices at the grocery store? Obama blames someone else.
Yep...that old Oblameacare Plan will really work, especially with the liberal media and the Ladies of The View supporting it!
If Obama is the answer, I don't want to hear the question.
Today they were loud and proud on GATech's campus.
KSU has something like 20 Christian student groups, just recently have students formed the school's first secular group.
So Wayne, no one with half a brain is going to buy your "Our universities tolerate almost anything except Christianity." statement.
Please take your obscurantism elsewhere.
You constantly rant about how bad Christians have it...Please stop...
Read the constitution...
We do not have to conform to your belief and you do not have to conform to ours..
That's the beauty of America..
Worship or not...No one cares...Just do not think for a moment you can impose your beliefs on us who think differently.
LiedToAgainAndAgain,
Obama has identified as Christian for decades so your rebuttal is a poor example. It did give you the chance to talk about Muslim schools though.
BTW the chances of Romney winning are approximately the same as my winning the lottery.
Rhuidean
you want to follow your own religion, be my guest, but I like that fact that you can't legislate how I live my private life.
Nice try at trying to lump your own Atheistic principles into the debate/equation...Sorry, but you failed on that one.
As for my own principles, they remain my own, thank you.