Advocacy Group Airs Broadcast About 1st Amendment Rights
Saturday April 5, 2008
The advocacy group First Freedom First has aired a documentary online about the First Amendment and all it entails. It's an interesting bit of broadcasting, and was simulcast on March 26 in movie theaters in two dozen cities in America. Entitled Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Separation of Church and State but Were Afraid to Ask, the film includes interviews with individuals whose work has embodied the fight for the separation of church and state, including Roberta Stewart, who fought to get a Wiccan pentacle on her dead husband's VA-issued headstone.
Patti, Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?
The groups sponoring the documentary do not. They all want Israel to trade land for peace and to purge all religiously-influenced laws and references to G-d from their public buildings. I don’t think we need that here.
It would be a death sentence for the Jewish nation all over again. That is what happens when Israel takes advice from secularists.
G-d has created and blessed the United States to be the power behind the creation and preservation of Israel. G-d has a special destiny for those who bless Israel. He has a destiny for those who bring harm to Israel too.
Why have a destiny? Why not now? God and our Lady have been watching over you and our country. Its up to us to make it peaceful and liveable.
>>>Friend said: The groups sponoring the documentary do not. They all want Israel to trade land for peace and to purge all religiously-influenced laws and references to G-d from their public buildings. I don’t think we need that here.
Friend, first of all I’m not certain that anyone’s opinion on Israel’s freedom is even relevant to a First Amendment discussion. After all, the First Amendment applies to people in the US, but it would be ludicrous to assume it has to apply to anyone in any other country.
As far as “purging religiously influenced laws” goes, many of us DO think that those laws should be eliminated here in the US. While the Christian population here in America is certainly the majority, that doesn’t make the United States a Christian nation. We are a secular nation, and despite the commonality between the laws of the Bible and the civil laws we have, the fact remains that there is indeed supposed to be a separation of church and state. While I realize this is troublesome to some folks out there, many more of us feel that it’s one of the things that make our nation a great place to live.
patti
Brava, Patti.
Patti- QUOTE After all, the First Amendment applies to people in the US, but it would be ludicrous to assume it has to apply to anyone in any other country. UNQUOTE
The principle of the First Amendment is a universal, G-d-given human right. Rights come from G-d, not from government. The right of a nation as a nation to honor G-d is universal. The right of a nation to make law based upon the insights of religious faith is also a universal human right.
Patti – ” the commonality between the laws of the Bible and the civil laws”
Exactly! This is what the First Amendment means. We do not endorse a state church, when we enact moral laws.
Here is an example of why the courts reject the idea of the seperation of church and state:
From aclj.org
A Victory for School Prayer
Mr. & Mrs. McKinney from Price, Utah, requested our assistance when their first-grade son, Patrick, told his mother at a parent/student luncheon that he could not say the blessing over their food because the Principal had a policy against prayer at school. When Mrs. McKinney inquired about the policy, the Principal confirmed that he did have such a policy because such a prayer, even during non-instructional time, would violate “the separation of church and state”; the Principal did say, however, that her son could pray if he did so quietly so that no one could hear – this way, no one would think that the school was sponsoring it.
We sent a demand letter to the school’s attorney on March 5, 2008, explaining that the policy was patently unconstitutional. We explained that a school could stand to lose its federal funding for holding discriminatory policies or policies that otherwise interfered with students’ rights under the First Amendment’s Speech and Free Exercise Clauses. We included the following quote from the U.S. Department of Education Secretary’s Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, which specifically addresses student prayer during non-instructional time:
Prayer During Noninstructional Time
Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.
. . .
Teachers, Administrators, and other School Employees
When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students. . . .
In addition, the U.S. Department of Education Guidelines (promulgated in 1998) address students’ rights to share their faith with others:
Students may also speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics.
On March 19, 2008, we received a response from the school’s attorney, explaining that the situation has been remedied. As the letter explains, the Principal is new and did not understand the constitutional rights of students, but he has since been apprised of student’s constitutional rights. Patrick McKinney will now be able to pray at school during non-instructional time, whether silently or aloud (in a reasonable manner); Patrick may also share his faith with other students during non-instructional time.
Mr. & Mrs. McKinney were pleased with the outcome, and thanked us for our assistance.
============
Friend says this is another example of how Christian human rights law firms donate their time to fight violations of religious liberty under the misnomer of “seperation of church and state.”
Friend….I don’t think Patti is opposing prayer to an individual. She is stating that the Amendment applies to the U.S., not Israel or the Universe. We already know who is taking care of us spiritually.
Kitty,
Yes, I see your point. If Patti is observing about the way we enshrine human rights in our laws and the Constitution, the I believe I am in agreement with Patti. And, yes, I find it comforting to know Who is taking care of a free people spiritually.
The phrase “separation of church and state” was not used to the detriment of people of faith until the Supreme Court picked it up in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education. But even the Supreme Court acknowledges the significant role Christianity played in the founding of our country, as well as the influence of Christian teaching on our nation. Consider the following statements from various Supreme Court opinions.
1892 Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States: “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”
1952 Zoarach v. Clauson: “The First Amendment does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of church and state. . . . We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.”
1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman: “Separation is not possible in the absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.”
1985 Wallace v. Jaffree: “The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”
All four of the above are opinions of the US Supreme Court.
See alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/churchandstate.aspx?cid=3208
FRIEND:
BLAH, blah, blah, blah… blah.
ALL:
Sorry, I know it’s not mature, but it feels good.
All I believe the Frist Amendment gives the people of the United States of America is the freedom for religion, the freedom of religion, and the freedom from religion.
The main reason that the Pilgrims sailed from England to America was to freely practice their strict and conservative religion. America’s government or laws were not based on Religion, chruch teachings, etc. They are based on the people coming to this country for religious freedom. The men who drafted the constitution, yes, were all god fearing men, but they knew the reason, why so many had come to be away from England.
Brava, Amethyst. Friend, you write about the rights of Christians to do what they want in religious ways, but deny us the Goddess given right to do the same. You need to understand that we, the Pagan community of the US, only want to have the same rights you insist upon. The separation of church and state gives us the right to insist that they be given to us too.