Separation of Church and State-

[Mother Of Four]

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm



"Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist."


The reason why I posted this:
Obama has the RIGHT to have prayer or no prayer, and to have whomever he wishes to do so. He has the RIGHT to have a moment of silence, or no moment at all.

One day we will have an Atheist or an Agnostic take the Oath, should they be pressured into having prayer?

No.

One day, we will have a President take the Oath that believes in a minor religion. Should they be forced to deny their beliefs? Be forced to pretend to be Christian?

No.

The Republicans have been bending the Bill of Rights, and the spirit of it for decades. Promoting Christianity as the main religion of our country, and denouncing any others. Denouncing anyone who has no religious beliefs as well, even though it's their right.

Come on people- do we really want to force someone into our spiritual beliefs, or force someone to have who WE want to represent them? If Warren is who was chosen, well- I don't agree with it even remotely. HOWEVER! It is not up to me to agree with someones religious beliefs, it is only up to me to respect their right to have them.

Link to the constitution http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Nice try,

but you forgot to flail hysterically. That's the only way to get noticed around here.

[Mother Of Four]

2. Sigh---

Do you think it would have helped to put a whole bunch of !!1!!!11!!! and Caps in the post?


:hide:

[suston96]

3. Sorry, I don't believe the invocation has anything to do with state religion, separation ....

.....of church and state or any of the other religious stuff being tossed around.

It's a tradition. In no way does such a "religious" invocation support state religion or anything else.

Meanwhile, here is what the Constitution says:

Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Get it? "Oath or Affirmation". No God, no angels, no saints - just a simple oath that says what it says. And that oath is all that counts.

There will be millions of people there watching this. Billions may be watching on TV all over the planet - and maybe beyond.

We will all be praying, I mean hoping, each in our own way, that this man will have the strength and will to faithfully execute and to support and defend our Constitution.

That is what this is really all about.

[Mother Of Four]

5. What did you think I was saying?

"And that oath is all that counts." Bingo!~

If he feels the need to have a prayer said over him...well that's his right. If he feels the need to strike his feet with willow branches....again: That is his RIGHT. He has no less right than we do to practice his religion.

Understand now?

Thanks for the well thought out response.

:hi:

[suston96]

7. I have been "sworn in" a number of times in the military and a couple of times in court.

Religion never entered into those occasions. No bible in the military swearings.

I don't believe any oath swearing carries with it a "right" to a religious reference.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. I agree with the conclusion but the opening argument is bogus.

"liberty" and "free exercise" are synonyms. There's not really any interpretative issue there.

The separation of church and state is also there in the establishment clause, though the doctrine is more interpreted than the odd 'liberty' example.

[Mother Of Four]

6. The opening argument was only to show what it means-

by separation of church and state.

There will be no government controlled church.
There will be no church controlling our government.
The government can not tell you what religion you may have.
They also can not tell you if or when you can pray.

It does NOT say that when someone is elected, they then lose their rights to religious expression or lack thereof. :)

(Edited to add, I was going to place this in the original post to clarify- but the time period was over and done with)

[harun]

8. Complete crap.

:nopity: