quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I saw that one, Panda, and agree with it completely. The US isnt founded on any one religion, but on the understandings that all religions are welcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

OK, since this thread has turned into nothing but a quote fight, I'll toss one of my own.

"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the christian religion."

Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the United States Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797.

quote:

In point of fact, we have no idea if Barlow is connected to the page of gibberish in the Arabic version. The "substitute" page was not discovered until 1930; what happened to the treaty before that time is unknown. The Article, if it was originally in the Arabic version, could have been lost at any time between 1797 and 1930. And there is certainly no reason to assume that Article 11 wasn't in the original Arabic version: A Muslim nation would surely have welcomed Article 11 as an assurance of American intentions with respect to religion.

More generally, we can't imagine how the absence of Article 11 in the Arabic version effects the separationist argument. It was the English version of the treaty that was approved by President Adams and Secretary Pickering, and this version unquestionably contained Article 11. Similarly, when the Senate ratified the treaty, they did so knowing full well that the English version declared that the United States was not a Christian nation. The separationist implications of the treaty can't be escaped by arguing that the Arabic version may not have contained Article 11; the President, Secretary of State, and Senate thought it did, but approved the treaty anyway.

The treaty of Tripoli remained on the books for eight years, at which time the treaty was renegotiated, and Article 11 was dropped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

In point of fact, we have no idea if Barlow is connected to the page of gibberish in the Arabic version. The "substitute" page was not discovered until 1930; what happened to the treaty before that time is unknown. The Article, if it was originally in the Arabic version, could have been lost at any time between 1797 and 1930. And there is certainly no reason to assume that Article 11 wasn't in the original Arabic version: A Muslim nation would surely have welcomed Article 11 as an assurance of American intentions with respect to religion.

More generally, we can't imagine how the absence of Article 11 in the Arabic version effects the separationist argument. It was the English version of the treaty that was approved by President Adams and Secretary Pickering, and this version unquestionably contained Article 11. Similarly, when the Senate ratified the treaty, they did so knowing full well that the English version declared that the United States was not a Christian nation. The separationist implications of the treaty can't be escaped by arguing that the Arabic version may not have contained Article 11; the President, Secretary of State, and Senate thought it did, but approved the treaty anyway.

The treaty of Tripoli remained on the books for eight years, at which time the treaty was renegotiated, and Article 11 was dropped.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/tripoli.htm

I think this explanation may negate the fact that it wasnt in the arabic version.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

As you noted, its a total misintepreation of the words of the treaty to claim that it is supports that the founding fathers werent deists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

As you noted, its a total misintepreation of the words of the treaty to claim that it is supports that the founding fathers werent deists.

You're darned right it is! As soon as you see someone saying that, let me know, and we'll kick his ass together.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

Actually, atheism is a lack of a belief, not a belief. What you classify it as is irrelevant.

Or...atheism is the belief that there is no God. See its all in how you approach it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45
Because those names have become part of accepted slang-speech. It's what they hear, so it's what they use. People today no longer believe in the gods of Greek Mythology, yet I've heard someone exclaim once "Merciful Zeus!" Same concept.

quote:

“Our country is transforming demographically, religiously,” said Edgar Hopida, the chapter's public relations director. “Our country has to now accommodate things that are not traditionally accounted for before.”

Carol Clipper, who is the guardian of two grandchildren enrolled in the school's Arabic program, said she believes students should be “given the freedom” to pray. Clipper is Christian, and her grandchildren are being raised in both Islam and Christianity.

“I take them to the mosque and they go to church with me,” she said.

Another parent, Tony Peregrino, whose son is not in the Arabic program, said he's OK with the Muslim students praying. What he cares about, he said, is that teachers are doing their job, and his son's education is not affected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

“Our country is transforming demographically, religiously,” said Edgar Hopida, the chapter's public relations director. “Our country has to now accommodate things that are not traditionally accounted for before.”

Carol Clipper, who is the guardian of two grandchildren enrolled in the school's Arabic program, said she believes students should be “given the freedom” to pray. Clipper is Christian, and her grandchildren are being raised in both Islam and Christianity.

“I take them to the mosque and they go to church with me,” she said.

Another parent, Tony Peregrino, whose son is not in the Arabic program, said he's OK with the Muslim students praying. What he cares about, he said, is that teachers are doing their job, and his son's education is not affected.

This is a snippit of an article about the San Diego schools allowing time for islamic prayer in school there. And it seems to be many people's views these days. Religion has withstood many assaults, many aggressors. Yet, instead of this being offered up for debate or comment, we have to worry about words written on a momument. Anythig to divert from what is really happening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

First, im not arguing. A Debate is far from an argument.

quote:


Second, i said the US was not founded on any one religion, but all religions. The idea that the government should not dictate what religion we practice is great, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Wiccans, ect, can all practice as they wish.... and im assuming we all agree that the practice should be within the laws set by the government.

Third, the second point, to me, in no way says the government HAS to remove religion from itself. This is possibly the best way i have seen my feelings on this issue,,,,,

"Congress cannot create a law to arrange a single institutionalized system adhering to a certain belief.

NOT that Congress cannot allow any expression of any belief in any place in government - there is simply a prohibition on selecting any religion, or sect of any religion, as the state, or sanctioned, religion. "

quote:

The majority of religious displays have been deemed illegal.

quote:

Nativity scenes and the precious baby Jesus will be hard to find on court house lawns.

quote:

October 29, 2008 - 9:21 AM
The Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - An activist group says an annual Nativity scene at a state park in north-central Ohio violates the separation of church and state and should be discontinued.
In a letter, the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom from Religion Foundation has asked Ohio Attorney General Nancy Rogers to determine whether Malabar Farm State Park's display is legal. The park is located outside of Mansfield.
The group threatened legal action on behalf of David Russell, a resident of Reynoldsburg in suburban Columbus.
A spokesman for the attorney general says the office is discussing the matter with the agency that runs state parks.
Last year, two parks removed Nativity scenes after Russell and another person asked them to add pagan displays. Gov. Ted Strickland reinstated the manger scenes and refused to add other symbols.

quote:

What does this mean for you and your attempt to sue the city for installing Santa next to city hall? A few general principles can be distilled from the fallout of the cases above. Weigh these elements before deciding to buy yourself a lawsuit:

1. Context: Courts after Lynch and Allegheny put a heavy emphasis on the other symbols scattered around the allegedly religious display. That means that a Teddy Ruxpin adjacent to the baby Jesus may well save a nativity scene from violating the Establishment Clause and that, as was the case in Allegheny, a Christmas tree may somehow save a menorah.

2. "Secular" versus "Religious": Odd though it may sound, the high court has determined that Santas, elves, reindeer, and long-suffering Mrs. Clauses are secular, as opposed to religious symbols. Crèches and menorahs are religious. Although Justice Brennan tried to point out for the dissenters in Lynch that religious symbolism is in the eye of the beholder, this distinction lives on. Even where Christmas trees would at least intuitively seem to celebrate the birth of, um, Christ. These "secular" symbols are not only constitutional; their proximity also saves religious symbols that would be unconstitutional if standing alone.

3. Government versus Private: Another thing you want to determine before retaining counsel is whether the display is owned and paid for by the government or by a private entity. Government-sponsored displays are more constitutionally suspect than private displays in public places.

4. The "Reasonable Observer" Test: The test devised by the Supreme Court in the Establishment Clause cases is simple: Would a reasonable observer of the display in question believe (even mistakenly) that the government was endorsing a particular religion or religion in general? Before you go thinking of yourself as that allegedly "reasonable" observer, know that the court has tended to substitute its own (specifically Justice O'Connor's) notion of reasonableness for yours in applying this test. There is also a sharp divide on the current court between the justices who assume reasonable observers understand the "history and context" of the public space and are aware if it's open to all comers, and the justices who feel like reasonable observers may just be visiting Martians.

5. Signs: You'll also want to pay particular attention to the signs posted around your local display. The court has frowned on "Gloria in Excelsis" but smiles on "Happy Holidays" or "Salute to Liberty!" And a sign indicating that the display was sponsored by private parties goes a long way to curing the impression that the government has endorsed it. (If the sign says "The Mayor (hearts) Jesus," I'll help you file the papers.)

...

One might think that the Supreme Court that can hand down clear, fixed rules—we all know and understand Miranda rights—might be able to pull together a clear rule for public holiday displays. Instead, we have a series of impossible cases, each of which renders the law just a bit more murky. Why? Perhaps because there are some extremely religious justices on the current court who view religion as beyond the reach of civil laws. Perhaps because religion is almost necessarily nonnegotiable, and zero sum (just ask some of our friends in Afghanistan) attempts to nip and tuck at its free expression will, by definition, offend. Perhaps the central tension built into the First Amendment—allowing us to worship freely, but prohibiting the government from doing the same—is coming back to bite our collective constitutional butt. School districts and police departments and mayors' offices have learned to expect the Christmas lawsuit along with the Sears catalogue every year. Maybe this year Santa could skip the PlayStation and inspire the high court to clarify this area of law once and for all.

Posted Friday, Dec. 21, 2001, at 11:07 AM ET

Crèche Test Dummies
Nativity scenes on public lands are illegal, rules the Supreme Court. Except when they're not.
By Dahlia Lithwick

quote:

Prayer is no longer allowed in public school

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Crèche Test DummiesNativity scenes on public lands are illegal, rules the Supreme Court. Except when they're not.
By Dahlia Lithwick