Just to let you know I have stated Rev Wright was wrong and the church should have been called on it. But thats just my opinion!!!

Good luck and congratulations on your retirement templter!



Depending on what you mean by "called on it" (if you mean legal ramifications) then I disagree. As much as I disagree with what he said, I am more against the idea of taking away his freedom to say what he did.

And to Kerry O. You have quoted Jefferson's personal feelings on Christianity. I have never said anything about Christianity, so Jefferson's personal feelings on that subject are irrelevant. My argument is that the church has not gone beyond its legal rights. What religion that particular church happens to represent is of no interest to me. Jefferson, despite what his personal feeling on religion were, also supported this little part of the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." You have, yet again, failed to deliver a meaningful rebuttal.

Translation: "OMG Kerry O, you've killed Kenny's argument! You bastard!"

In 1958, Barry Goldwater said this on a parallel subject:

"This bill and the foregoing remarks of the majority remind me of an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." If adopted, the legislation will mark the inception of aid, supervision, and ultimately control of education in this country by the federal authorities."

I'd substitute 'religious' for federal. Because I've seen first-hand how this happens by living near Dover, Pa and watching the Fundies try to smuggle Creationism into the curriculum. The 'camel's nose', in this case was intelligent design, but even a conservative judge placed on the bench by a conservative saw through the ruse when the text "Of Pandas and People" used by the authorities was compared with previous versions and found to be surgically edited to suit the new spin.

That same conservative judge said this about his decision:

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."


I believe this is just the sort of mischief Jefferson et al foresaw and hoped to mitigate when Jefferson paraphrased the Constitution by introducing his wall of separation of Church and State.

BTW, all the school board members responsible for this debacle were voted out of office.

Further note to Ken: a little less bluster and more citations of actual history, if you please. The defendants in the aforementioned case also tried to make swiss cheese out of the separation of Church and State doctrine. With no success, I might add.


-Kerry O.

MOST definitely should be able......To me it is a vagrant violation of their freedom of speech, First Amendment Constitutional right

LINDYY

Would you say the same thing about Mosques donating to political campaigns?

Yes, like it or not.....in the USA to me it is discrimination against one's religious beliefs.....

We already have regulations in place on monetary amounts allowed to be contributed..

Really, it is like BRIBERY.....keep your mouth shut or pay more taxes......

When we file our federal income tax returns we are given tax exemptions, etc...allowed to deduct for interest paid, number of children....you get the drift....BUT we as individuals do not lose our financial exemptions for financially/physically/verbally supporting our party or candidate......kind of a double standard.....

DISCRIMINATION/PREJUDICE in my opinion.....always felt that way.....



LINDYY

There is no double standard.

Just ignorance.

This has been an active topic. Something that really needs to be looked at and laws pertaining to non profits do also. Are these laws enforced or just over looked!!!

Kerry O I don't think you realize what you are doing here so let me help you out.


First you made a personal attack on Christians, and made the assumption that I am a Christian.


Then you showed the letter the Danbury Baptists, which if you read Jefferson's letter back to them, did not contradict my interpretation at all.


Then you made a personal attack on me(ad hominem), took my argument and suggested that while I'm at it I do things like "compel candidates for office to pass religous tests, mandate prayer in the public schools and get public money for religious education" when I have made no such suggestions or said anything that even warrants that thought process (ad absurdiam).

Then you actually made a decent argument, to which I responded. If you missed my response feel free to go back and read it.

Then you went into Jefferson's personal feelings on Christianity, once again narrowing the perspective of this argument from religion in general to Christianity, which makes me wonder if you don't just have some kind of personal vendetta with Christians. Regardless of whether you do or not however, Jefferson's personal feelings really have no bearing on what the 1st Amendment states quite clearly, or the matter of if a Church is able to be involved in politics and still retain it's tax exemption.



As much as I was tempted to stop reading after seeing a childish remark like this, I decided to push past the adaption of a South Park quote and see if you would redeem yourself. Instead what I found was an attempt to change the subject to creationism in public school curriculums.

So, Kerry O. please tell me what you really want this debate to be about so I can give a response. However let me state that if you want this to be a name calling match, a subjective debate on how I do or do not feel about a particular religion, or if you intend to keep changing the subject then I will not be a part of it.

-Ken

Classic Marketing 101-- if you can't make a superior product, damn the competition for all manner of evil.

Then kick the toy box and run away.

Your entry into this debate was predicated on giving all we poor unwashed secularists a 'quick history lesson'.

I offered, by no means complete, a list of publicly verifiable quotes showing that Jefferson was probably being twisted like a pretzel by your interpretation. I cited a recent court case with which I'm very familiar. Since then, all you've done is puff out your chest and hint about my not being able to compete with your estimable self and complain about how I'm not playing fair.

Something that takes NO research to do. Show us more history if you want a debate and quit whining about the arena of ideas being rough and tumble, replete with gorings of Sacred Oxen. True dabaters know this and argue the case on the merits anyway.

Cite some court cases. Quote the movers and shakers.

If you can.....


-Kerry O.

This didn't happen in America, but should be enshrined as a cautionary tale of what happens when theologians are given free rein (or reign) with civil government.

The son of Jewish parents, in 1858 Edgardo Mortara, then 6 years of age, was 'legally' seized in Bologna by the papal police.

His parents' 'crime'? Unbeknownst to them (and certainly contrary to their wishes), the child had been secretly baptized by his Catholic nanny. According to the Catholic Church, that made him legally and irrevocably Christian. Except for short visits supervised by priests, his parents never saw him again.

Ken says he wants sanction for a one-way wall for Church and State such that relgious authority can pick and choose where to assert its divine aegis, enforced by a 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do', Majority Rules paradigm.

But, the underpinnings of the American form of government have _always_ been to attempt to protect the minority from such tyrannies that the can be inflicted by ecclesiastical edicts. Indeed, sometimes, as in the case of the Danbury Baptists, the plaintiffs have themselves been religious groups.

This is why the legal doctrine of Separation of Church and State is alive and well.


-Kerry O.

could you show me where this is posted please

"""""This is why the legal doctrine of Separation of Church and State is alive and well."""""

i here it a lot

i read it a lot but where is it actually stated as law

Despite the fact that I feel they have no real relevance to the conversation I will entertain your request for some quotes. Here are just a few.

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
--Thomas Jefferson

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The Creator has not thought proper to mark those in the forehead who are of stuff to make good generals. We are first, therefore, to seek them blindfold, and then let them learn the trade at the expense of great losses."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time."
--Thomas Jefferson

"Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God."
--Benjamin Franklin

"Whoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." --Benjamin Franklin

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, is the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see." - Letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University, March 9, 1790
--Benjamin Franklin

Here's a few Supreme Court cases:

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 can not 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.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

I'm not saying that Jefferson didn't believe in _a_ God. By most accounts, he was a Deist, and by his own request:

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to myself and my God alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."

I somehow doubt that any of the today's Christian Evangelicals who want to 'Take Back America For Jesus' would have ever, ever voted for a Jefferson presidency.

And the would have despised "The Jefferson Bible" as blasphemy.


-Kerry O.

Absolutly not.

They can if they want to pay taxes.

But the last thing they want to do is that.

IT DOES NOT EXIST...EXCEPT IN CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL'S 'WISH LIST.'

LINDYY

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

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.

Now for a little something on the intentions and motivations of the founders. We can start with Jefferson. I particularly like the last quote.

Let's see...here is Jefferson on the subject.

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that '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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:419

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119

I'm sure you have access to Westlaw, so why don't you research Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District and get back to us. :)

BTW, looks like Murtha made it back in it, PA. is still a blue state by double digit margins and the Pittsburg area went for Obama by similar margins.


-Kerry O.