Petition Against Chaplain
- Thread starter ia8manfan
- Start date
Re: Let's simplify this whole thing
In that sense, you are correct. As a matter of practicality, it would be applicable today, because of the precedent set by the courts over the past 50 years. However, that doesn't mean that is "correct" to apply that clause. It would likely not have been applied 100 or so years ago.
You pose many good, difficult questions. Assuming for this discussion that I accept the present interpretation of "Wall of Separation", I would then propose that the concept is not being applied fairly.
Christianity is regularly ridiculed in public school and college classrooms, many times with impunity. This behavior is accepted and even encouraged under the guise of "intellectual freedom".
If the religion is Christianity, this behavior is practically forbidden today, and any teachers that openly try it would likely be legally reprimanded or fired. In practicality, in public classrooms today, our "law" makes it acceptable to ridicule Christianity, but not acceptable to advocate it. Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that our founders, no matter how diverse they were (and I do agree that they were diverse), intended for the constitution to promote and allow such a situation regarding any religion.
I agree that my position isn't the only one, but I think it is the "safest" one. The constituion functions on several levels...it provides the practical framework for running our country...it functions as philosphical document that provides interesting thoughts on the origins of human rights and liberties. But the question is, what is its primary function? I think its primary function is to serve as the framework for how our country is to operate. I have no problem discussing the constitution philosophically, but I do have a significant problem when the results of that philosphical discussion, which seem to clearly conflict with the intent of the Founders, are implemented as law through judicial decision.
In that sense, you are correct. As a matter of practicality, it would be applicable today, because of the precedent set by the courts over the past 50 years. However, that doesn't mean that is "correct" to apply that clause. It would likely not have been applied 100 or so years ago.
You pose many good, difficult questions. Assuming for this discussion that I accept the present interpretation of "Wall of Separation", I would then propose that the concept is not being applied fairly.
Christianity is regularly ridiculed in public school and college classrooms, many times with impunity. This behavior is accepted and even encouraged under the guise of "intellectual freedom".
If the religion is Christianity, this behavior is practically forbidden today, and any teachers that openly try it would likely be legally reprimanded or fired. In practicality, in public classrooms today, our "law" makes it acceptable to ridicule Christianity, but not acceptable to advocate it. Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that our founders, no matter how diverse they were (and I do agree that they were diverse), intended for the constitution to promote and allow such a situation regarding any religion.
I agree that my position isn't the only one, but I think it is the "safest" one. The constituion functions on several levels...it provides the practical framework for running our country...it functions as philosphical document that provides interesting thoughts on the origins of human rights and liberties. But the question is, what is its primary function? I think its primary function is to serve as the framework for how our country is to operate. I have no problem discussing the constitution philosophically, but I do have a significant problem when the results of that philosphical discussion, which seem to clearly conflict with the intent of the Founders, are implemented as law through judicial decision.
I have no problem with anyone seeking spiritual advice. My question remains as to why the University needs to endorse something like this instead of using the resources around Ames?
And yet the United States has prohibited Mosques from sounding their call for prayer because it "infringes" on the Christians' rights for religion. Sounds a little biased to me since Christian churches can sound there call for prayer (bells).
And again, a non-denominational resource such as a library is different than endorsing a religious belief of any kind. It shows a preference, the library doesn't have a preference of religion.
While I applaud your attempt to add something constructive to the discussion here, may I be so bold as to suggest your time would be better spent on sportsline.com holding down the "ENTER" key on the ISU mascot poll page...
I never have had a teacher at any level "ridicule" any religion in the classroom. Even at a parochial high school, I took a world religions course, and basically it was used to show the premise of the major religions and didn't favor one over any other. It was informative, and actually, is where I started to question organized religions as a whole. I would have a problem with any teacher at any level supporting one religion over others in the context of a classroom. I think that because Christianity is the prominant religion in our country, it just appears that it is "attacked" more.
The difference being mosques would be sounding their call five times a day every day, as opposed to a once-in-awhile occurrence with the church. As a matter of fact, outside of really small towns, I can't remember the last time I heard a church bell chime. Probably because most city ordinances don't allow it anymore :sad9cd:
Without religion we are stuck as a bunch of prudes back in the 1600s, and all live in a tiny hut right next to the king's castle.
That's not entirely true. My parents live up the street from a church, and whenever there's a service, the bells are a ringing. However, in that same town, the Mosque can't publicly use it's call to prayer, but has to just announce it through the PA system inside the church. That's a stifling of freedom of exercising their religion because of the anti-muslim movement since 9/11, IMO.
Re: Let's simplify this whole thing
You would have been right prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. Technically the applicable part of the Constitution is the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, through which the 1st has been incorporated against the states. The courts have interpreted prohibitions of the 1st Amendment to apply to the states in exactly the same way as the federal government though, so for practicality purposes it makes sense to just discuss the 1st Amendment.
Re: Let's simplify this whole thing
I think I would disagree as to it being the "safest" one, probably because I like the results a more liberal interpretation more than you do. I also think this country would have been in trouble though if a strict constructionist interpretation had won out. I would also add that couched within serving "as the framework for how our country is to operate" is the notion of individual liberties which restrict what the government is able to do. Among those individual liberties are some that are not enumerated in the Constitution, and which are eluded to in the 9th Amendment. The wording of the 9th Amendment begs for a natural law approach to rights, and if such an approach is taken then it makes sense that we would better "discover" the extent of those rights as time goes on.
Just checking back in to see who ultimately will get the last word in this never-ending saga. :rofl8yi:
I was going to prove you wrong by not responding. But then I figured that no one would realize I was proving you wrong unless I said something. So maybe I'll prove you wrong by not responding to your response to my response. Maybe.
I knew that you would wait for my response, so that you could not respond to it, and I am responding expecting you not to respond, but knowing that you probably will anyway, despite yourself.
If it were done when ’t is done, then ’t were well
It were done quickly.
Macbeth. ACT I Scene 7.
This is the LAST WORD, BWAH,HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That's all Folks!!!
Your response does not make sense because it is based on your opinion and not on what I said. Is that all you got?
Ahhh...no...but if there was an Olympic event for jumping to wild conclusions, I'd want you on our team! Just pointing out than many of the colonists who originally settled this country were escaping religious persecution in England and other European countries.
I thought somebody was trying to declare this thread dead above???
Thanks, I was actually captain of the jumping to wild conclusions team in high school, but I couldn't make it at the collegiate level.
I'm sorry your posts are just very confusing to me. You seem to claim one thing, site a bunch of evidence, and then come to a contrary conclusion. I guess I just don't understand what you believe...sorry.
