I know this original post was not about religion and separation thereof but since MJhig brought it up....

The First 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.

Nowhere here does it say that Government nor officials in government may not express their religious views. It simply says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

In other words, the Federal Government is not allowed to establish a State Religion and force its populous to follow it.

The Ten Commandments posted in a school does not establish a State religion and prevent others from practicing any religion they want to as there is no Federal law that states that you must follow/believe in or even read the Ten Commandments or face prosecution by the Federal Government.

Including the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge does not establish a State religion and prevent others from practicing any religion they want to as there is no Federal law that states that you must recite the pledge or face Federal prosecution.

A small town putting up a Nativity Scene during Christmas does not establish a State religion and prevent others from practicing any religion they want to as there is no Federal law that states that you must follow the religion that the display is derived from or face Federal prosecution.

I could go on and on with these types of examples...

What these types of scenarios actually represent is the individual religious expression of a majority of the populous of whatever is involved (i.e. school district, small town, The US as a whole) As long as that expression does not translate into written law forcing others to follow their own practices, then there is no Constitutional breach.

The Forefathers were protecting citizens from having their rights and freedoms taken by the majority. They were NOT ensuring that no one shall ever be offended by the majority.

IN FACT: By taking away the religious expression of the majority aren't you in fact "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

And despite what was previously posted, our Forefathers were EXTREMELY religious people. AND they used their beliefs heavily in their decisions that established our country! You can see it by reading almost any writing that came from them. If they were alive today, they would probably be labeled as Zealots and Whackos. They just understood that no government should be able to prevent them or any other citizen from practicing whatever they believe.

If you are ever curious as to whether something violates the first amendment as it pertains to religion then the litmus test is this:

Does it establish a State run religion that everyone must follow or face Federal Prosecution?

Yes?........................Go directly to the Supreme Court.

No?..........................Find something useful to complain about.

I DID NOT bring it up. It was brought up prior to my post in this thread and I stood back in the "randy" thread.

In other words, the Federal Government is not allowed to establish a State Religion

Exactly, I cropped your additional "language", that's what I said from the beginning but we have common ground here save your additional personal interpretation.

The Ten Commandments posted in a school does not establish a State religion and prevent others from practicing any religion they want to as there is no Federal law that states that you must follow/believe in or even read the Ten Commandments or face prosecution by the Federal Government

Language again, it is sponsored by the state here, state building, state dollars implying this religion is "the best/only religion". In short, state endorsed.

Forced? That's language again... I may not force you to like me sleeping with your wife but if she constantly subjects you to my being with her as natural, depending on her ability to persuade and your age and dispositiion, you may in time agree. The point is propaganda has it's affects.

Including the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge does not establish a State religion

Language again... no it doesn't "establish", it implies state endorsement. Again you like that "force" language. Thoughtful people certainly realize subtle coercion is far more affective especially on young susceptible minds.

A small town putting up a Nativity Scene during Christmas does not establish a State religion

If it's paid for with the town's tax dollars and placed on public property, yes it does.

What these types of scenarios actually represent is the individual religious expression of a majority of the populous of whatever is involved (i.e. school district, small town, The US as a whole) As long as that expression does not translate into written law forcing others to follow their own practices, then there is no Constitutional breach

That's wrong and not the point. Until all other religions are represented with the same vigor on all state levels... NO religion should be represented in government for that very reason. Again, you are twisting the language to benefit your point of view. This is exactly the problem. in this country, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Native American etc. people have endured Christian beliefs year after year. Is that fair? Would Christians be happy with say, Muslim doctrine in our courts, schools, on our currency, Pledge Of Allegiance etc. paid for by tax dollars state endorsed even though no-one is actually forced by law to love it?

The Forefathers were protecting citizens from having their rights and freedoms taken by the majority

EXACTLY! What if Hebrews, Muslims, Satanists etc. were the majority instead of Christians, would Christians be so enthusiastic for not their "God" in government? That's exactly the point. NO religion can be state sponsored for that very reason. Religion's place is in the home and church, not government.

They were NOT ensuring that no one shall ever be offended by the majority.

Offended isn't the issue but I somehow believe if the tables were turned it would be.

And despite what was previously posted, our Forefathers were EXTREMELY religious people

Some were, some weren't for example Benjamen Franklin, probably the most significant of our country's architects, was an atheist.

I'll leave the remainder of your post un-addressed. I have no intention of attacking anyone's intelligence. I only wanted to counterpoint the common "In God We Trust, Under God" etc. flaunts made in this thread and others.

By the way, though I said previously I was raised as a devout Catholic, that was many years before I did my own exploration... I too am agnostic but that's irrelevant to the issue..

If you are such a "strict' Constitutionalist, your interpretation is very different than mine.

MJ

And busterkeaton, I'd RATHER not have to go through a scanner or detector, but, if it keeps my plane from being blown up, I'll do it twice!

I just want to point out that this is a strawman argument. We have been going through metal detectors for decades this is not new.

What is new is the government has the right to sneek and peak searches. They can go into your home and take stuff and they never have to tell you they were there. They can arrest someone and never tell anyone why he was taken. This is something we used to associate with South American dictatorships. They can use secret evidence that you do not have the right to see. This we used to associate with the totalitarian societies. The government was also seeking to look at what you have taken out of the library or bought in a bookstore without having to have any evidence that you were involved in anything wrong.

The government last month started to use these powers in cases that have nothing to do with terrorism. Slippery slope etc.

Another reason to maintain the liberties set forth in the Constitution is the government is so often wrong. We rounded up. thousands of people in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The number of that we convicted on terrorist-related acts? 0. A mile from where I grew is an unmarked federal jail. You would never know it if you drove past. A lot of people were taken there right after 9/11. It was routine that a new prison was grabbed by guards and smashed face first into the wall while handcuffed. None of these people were terrorists. None were Al Qaeda. You take the emotions that were going on in NYC that month and tell them you got some terrorist suspects and that no one was going to know where they are and they couldn't talk to a lawyer, well, it's a potent recipe.

Just to avoid any other strawmen arguments, I do understand the current danger, several areas of my daily routine have been targeted and had specific terrorists plans against them, including my subway station.

MJHig,

I apologize for implying that you brought up religion. I was scanning through the posts and yours caught my eye. I didn't mean anything negative by referencing you.

Now, on to your argument.

I understand your argument. You are like many people who feel that religious views are a private matter and have no place in any government institution. I can certainly undertstand that POV and respect it, but my point is that this is not what the founders intended.

"Language again, it is sponsored by the state here, state building, state dollars implying this religion is "the best/only religion". In short, state endorsed."

The Constitution says that Congress shall not establish a religion. I reread the First and nowhere did I see anything that says that no government institution can "endorse" a religion. I looked in the Thesaurus and "endorse" is not listed as a synonym for "establish"

"Until all other religions are represented with the same vigor on all state levels... NO religion should be represented in government for that very reason............."

Like it or not, the majority rules in this country......as long as the rights of the minority are protected. Which leads me to the rest of your statement:

"This is exactly the problem. in this country, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Native American etc. people have endured Christian beliefs year after year. Is that fair?"

They have endured Christian beliefs? By way that they have been exposed to them, yes. Have they not been able to practice their own religion? Are they not allowed to construct their own churches/synogougs/mosques etc.., are they being mandated to practice and/or believe Christianity?....NO

Is it fair? No, it isn't, but fairness really isn't the issue here.

"Would Christians be happy with say, Muslim doctrine in our courts, schools, on our currency, Pledge Of Allegiance etc. paid for by tax dollars state endorsed even though no-one is actually forced by law to love it?"

You're right, most Christians probably would be in an up roar. But....if this came about by Muslim majorities in the populous electing Muslim majorities in the House, Senate, etc... and no laws were passed preventing other religious beliefs and practices....then, I would give them the same argument I am giving here. (see my litmus test in my first post)

Let's say a Muslim boy goes to school in "anytown" USA where most in the school are not Muslim. Muslim faith asks that they pray multiple times a day. (I don't know the specifics so if their are any Muslims reading, please correct.) Should this boy be allowed to pray, at the times that are prescribed by Islam, during school? Yes! If not, then a government institution is preventing the free excerise of his religion.

Now, let's say that a particular town in the US has a high population of Muslims, a majority of that town in fact. Muslims make up most of the teachers, school board and student body. Should that school be allowed to set its daily class schedule around the Muslim prayer schedule? YES! As long as the non-Muslims in the school are not made to pray with them or receive any punishment for not practicing the Muslim faith.

Catering to the "Majority" and Prohibiting the "Minority" are not the same thing.

In some countries, there are laws against practicing certain religions. Punishment for violating such laws range from imprisonment to death. Yet, people will still risk life and freedom to follow their beliefs. This is what the First amendment protects us from. And this continues to be one of the main reasons why the US is still one of the top countries to immigrate to.

I have a feeling that people out there that have faced real religious persucution as our Forefathers did, would laugh at the notion that the US today, does not have Freedom of Religion because "In God We Trust" is stamped on our coin.


It's all there, in the Constitution. It's a fabulous document. It's like the owner's manual to our country. So....(and I mean this in jest)....RTFM!!

C'mon guys, can't we avoid the whole religious thing? Take it to a newsgroup or something. Please?

SPOT,

Yes we could......but what fun would that be :)

Seriously though....such topics are sure to envoke passion. Which makes it hard to remember that this is a support forum for a video editing program!

You're right though, so I'll leave my last post as my last on the subject.

I would delete them but....whenever I see the post that says "the contents of this post have been deleted" I tend to think that the poster was ranting and waving, swearing up a storm and insulting everyone and their mother.....in other words....I feel like I missed something real juicy! So I'll leave it as is ;)

Wow, I thought that video was very well done...for it had me watch it all the way through and that is an acomplishment in itself. It is a good example of what could happen in years to come. However, if I was that man I would just make my own Pizza.

Now it was mentioned earlier in this thread that only those who have something to hide would be worried about this type of thing. Yes that might be true but I do know this:

FACT: Every human being that drives a car breaks the law once on an average 4 mile drive (Speed Limit, California Stop, no Signal ect..) Now if everyone was being watched with 200,000 cameras in each major city then every one would have tickets. Ticket fines and insurance would be so high that no one could afford to drive thus empty roads with cameras not making their due.

If EVERYTHING is exposed with every human then we all must be prepared to pay for ALL consequences.

-Randy

patreb, I don't think it has anything to do with "conservative republican", because I am a conservative republican and I want my privacy. I think the ideas in that video ARE very scary, and I too fear "big brother". I'm not for cameras on every street corner that supposedly catch only the bad guys.

Since you brought politics into it... But isn't it interesting how the liberals are always the ones telling gun owners they need to register their guns? And then the liberals are always the ones who say the conservatives are the ones who don't want you to have privacy. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Oh, and MJ, seperation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the constitution. It was created by liberals.

"Put that in your pipe and smoke it." . . and that would be what type of smoking? Noted! G

>I'm not for cameras on every street corner that supposedly catch only the bad guys.

Serious question: What is wrong with them? Personally I speed anytime I think its safe and I don't see any cops around, so I'm "above average" in this respect and I don't want cameras on every corner mailing me speeding tickets at home. (This is done in my birthplace and every few months there is a newspaper article of someone getting $1,000 worth of tickets in a single trip.) OTOH, I think millions of cameras monitoring public places can do good things and the fears are overblown. In short, I agree with this editorial from eweek. I'd best interested to hear what others think about the editorial.

For the super paranoid among you, disconnect from the Internet NOW and reformat your hard drive. You are driving the biggest piece of spyware which logs everything you do.

This is a link to a long document that describes what Microsoft knows about all of you and what information your computer hides from you on a daily basis.

You have NO privacy.

http://www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/2004/09/709.shtml

I can almost hear the black helecopters coming. For those that believe even a little of the drivel mentioned in the linked article please readjust your tin foil hat now otherwise you risk having you're brain waves monitored too. I suspect the people that fall for this kind of garbage also ran out and bought multiple rolls of duct tape when instructred to do so by looney tune Home "Security" Czar Tommy Ridge. <wink>

I don't have a problem with the idea of cameras all over the place... I mean, just look at how much we're able to really appreciate the devistation of the tsuinami because of all those people who had cameras. But what I'm NOT for is the government putting cameras up all over the place. We've had cameras on us at gas stations, stores, many public places, for most of our lives, and I've never had a problem with that. For the most part, privately owned security cameras ARE for your protection. But if they were owned by the government all it would take is one crazy nutty politician working on everyone's fears, who'd probably bring the protection of women and children into it, and they'd start monitoring a lot more than stores and gas stations.

There's something to be said about police patrolling a park. You know exactly one pair of eyes is seeing you per person. A camera, the glass lens, is ominous because countless numbers of people can be watching from the back side. That's what is scary about it.

You're absolutely right we have no rights anymore.

"You're absolutely right we have no rights anymore." well that's just about one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

seperation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the constitution. It was created by liberals

Do you mean modern day liberals or the liberals who wrote the Bill of Rights of the Constitution? The term "separation of church and state" dates back to the writings of Thomas Jefferson. How do you interpret the first clause of the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The framers had specifically rejected a narrower version of this that said:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on the account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience in any manner or on any pretext be infringed.

I also agree that privacy and liberty is not necessarily a liberal or conservative issue. The first Ammendment is often attacked from both the left and the right. As to the current situation, a good test is, would you support expanded and unchecked Presidential powers under a different president, say, President Hillary Clinton. If you can think of a politician who would abuse the power, then it's probably a bad policy.

I wanted to stop...

I said I was gonna stop....

...I just can't help myself!


busterkeaton,

You are correct! Jefferson did write the phrase "Separation between Church and State" in a letter to the Danbury Baptists Assosciation in 1801, where he explained to them that the First Amendment Religious freedom was not a right that was given to them by the government (which could be taken away), but rather a Natural Right (given by God), which could not be limited by government.

The Supreme court referenced this letter in the 1947 case "Everson Vs. Board of Education" where they concluded that it was within the States rights to reimburse parents for the expense of busing their children to and from private, including parochial schools. While they in fact, upheld New Jersey's right to aid in their citizen's religious education, they were the first to reference Jefferson's letter in a way that applied the first amendment to individual states and not just the Federal Government.

They concluded that while Jefferson's letter was a personal one and not a government document, it gave insight as to what the First Amendment was about.

Funny thing about it though, Jefferson had no part in the framing of the First Amendment!

Regardless, the "Separation between Church and State" idea has been grossly distorted through out times.

The Founders wanted no government influence over religion. Not the other way around.

Don't think the Founders used religion in their governing? Consider this:

• The House of Representatives called for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving on September 24, 1789—the same day that it passed the First Amendment.
• From 1789 to today, Congress has authorized chaplains, paid by public funds, to offer prayers in Congress and in the armed services.
• Jefferson closed the Danbury letter, written in his official capacity as President, with a prayer: “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man.”
• On the very day Jefferson sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists he was making plans to attend church services in the House of Representatives.
• Jefferson signed a treaty into law in 1803 that provided for a government-funded missionary to the Kaskaskia Indians.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.
—George Washington, Farewell Address to the United States, 1796

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
—John Adams, October 11, 1798

Who did frame the religion clause of the First Ammendment? Was it Madison?

I know that religion clause of the First Ammendment relied on a law on religious freedom for the state of Virginia that was written by Jefferson and championed by Madison. So Jefferson's influence is strong even he did not write the final text. I never said Jefferson wasn't religious or that people who believe in a strong separation of Church and State aren't religious. I know that Jefferson used the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence. I also know that some religious organizations were the strongest supporters of separation of Church and State because it ensured their religious liberty.

OK, found it. Here it is.

No, you're right. The First was based on work that Jefferson did, even though he wasn't involved in the actual draft. I just found it funny that the Supreme Court in 1947 didn't seem to know this!

My main point is that the Founders (including Jefferson) never meant the First Amendment (or the idea of Separation) to mean that Government or its members could not express religious views or endorse things that pertained to religion. Their main concern was that the Government could not limit the religious expression of its citizens except in the cases that it did harm to society (i.e. sacrifices, etc...)

They did not want there to be a "Church of the United States" Like that expierenced from English Rule. In Virginia, for example, the local Church of England used existing law to force attendance. Failure to do so could result in financial punishment, whipping or even execution.

This is what the Founders did not want!

I would be willing to bet that they would laugh their a__es off at the idea that the Government can't stamp "In God We Trust" on their coin, put Under God' in the pledge, or let kids pray during school or let a newly elected President have a prayer at his Inaguraul ceremony.

And now, more quotes to show what the Founders intent might have been.

MJHig, take note of Ben Franklin!

President Thomas Jefferson: No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Source: Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.

Signer of the Constitution and Signer of the Declaration, Benjamin Franklin: We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. . . . I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more clergy of the city be requested to officiate in that service. Source: James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985, June 28, 1787.

Signer of the Constitution, First U. S. President, George Washington: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to his Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), pp. 22-23.


Signer of the Declaration of Independence and President of the United States, John Adams: [W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.

re: I would be willing to bet that they would laugh their a__es off at the idea that the Government can't stamp "In God We Trust" on their coin, put Under God' in the pledge, or let kids pray during school or let a newly elected President have a prayer at his Inaguraul ceremony.

If they paid us a visit today I suspect their concerns would lie elsewhere. How can we be at war when Congress has declared no war? Why are we imprisoning people for taking medicine? How can Congress spend more money than it has at its disposal? The Federal government is in the education and health care business?! WTF!? We have HOW MANY military bases outside the main land? Guess we didn't listen to G. Washington's advice about extra-national loyalties eh?

The sad truth is if the founding fathers saw the current sad state of the country, how corrupt the government is, (regardless of political party) how lazy and weak Congress is, how one administration after another gets away with one lie after another and blowing billions on pork barrel projects and all the current government programs, all the pointless laws, all the warmongering, etc., the founding fathers would do what you'd expect of them. Start the second American revolution and be at the head of the pack to kick the current bunch out, top to botton. I mean ALL of Congress, the entire executive branch and the judical as well. What I'd LOVE to see is someone like Jefferson or Franklin use the language as only they could and let it rip on the likes of Rice and RummyDummy and the rest of liars,losers and fools.

I think the Founding Fathers would be blown away that you could preview effects in DV and HDV over firewire without rendering.

Well as you probably know those references were not originally on money or in the pledge. Paper money did not have it until the 50's just after "Under God" was added to the Pledge. Coins first got "In God We Trust" during the Civil War. Some later coins did not use this.

Earlier when I talked about religious groups supporting the separation of Church and State, I was particularly referring the Catholic Church which was the most prominent opponent of prayer in school and founded the parochial school system over it. If you want to know more about that or are interested in the history behind Gangs of New York, google "Bishop Dagger John." It's a little known bit of Americana.