vincentML -> RE: Church and State (12/9/2012 3:20:49 PM)
|
quote:
I believe that anyone can tear anything that they want apart in order to make it follow their own rule. Again, it is the intent of the law that matters. what are your feelings on this subject? Toys, thank you for asking; I have feelings on two levels. Historically, the First was drafted to protect religions against each other and against what happened in Europe when the Treaty of Westphalia gave States/Nations the right to compel religious observance chosen by the ruler. It is in direct line of the Puritans' migration seeking religious freedom [although they turned out to be pretty zealous and authoritarian] Not only is the intent to prevent one dominant religion, the First also has the effect of protecting nonbelievers from required participation or observation of religious ritual sponsored by the State, meaning the Federal government and the several states (through the 14th Amendment) So, essentially it is a protection of Liberty. One that is not provided so much in some Middle Eastern nations. On a personal level, I am a nonbeliever. I am also a pretty old guy. I can recall daily readings from the Old Testament in my public school classroom. Not only does the First protect against establishment of a State religion, it guarantees the right of every one to practice their own religion when and how they wish, or not at all, as long as their practice is not affiliated with a governmental function. Additionally, it protects the right to make your own decisions about freedom of assembly. Kids who are forced to assemble in a classroom to listen to prayer or bible reading have lost that option. In conclusion, I think all aspects of the First should be zealously guarded and maintained even if doing so infringes on something popular or unpopular as when the ACLU defended the FA rights of the KKK to hold a parade in Indiana (?) Emotions may run high over a particular issue but in our system it is left to the Courts to decide.
|
|
|
|