Re: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pete)
- From: LX-i <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:51:51 -0500
docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
You don't ask my tax dollars to go to support your interpretations of these admittedly imperfect relatings of what you are calling 'divine' and I don't ask your tax dollars to do the same with... whatever I come up with, as well.
(Note that when I say 'support' I use it in the broadest sense, including but not limited to such things as the wall of a building paid for by your taxes is not be used as a base for broadsheets for my church's functions, the salary of public officials paid for by your taxes is not to be used for their implementing of my religions tenets or mouthing of their preachings, the land paid for by your taxes is not to be used for displays of my religion's icons. That would seem to be fair enough, wouldn't you say?)
This stark of a separation was never intended by our founding fathers. We can find, from an examination of their writings, that this is not the case. (Either that, or they didn't abide by the laws they created; though that seems improbable.)
We'll first start with the very document that set forth our independence - the Declaration of Independence (pasted straight from the Library of Congress web site).
"WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights...."
Here, they not only recognize "Nature's God", but that the source of these unalienable rights is their "Creator", not the government. (That's another lesson in itself.) And, as they're wrapping it up...
"And for the Support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honour."
Next, we'll go to the Continental Congress. The records from the first day have some interesting stuff...
"Resolved, That the Revd. Mr. Duché be desired to open the Congress tomorrow morning with prayers, at the Carpenter's Hall, at 9 o'Clock.1.
" [Note 1: 1 "After settling the mode of voting, which is by giving each Colony an equal voice, it was agreed to open the business with prayer. As many of our warmest friends are members of the Church of England, [I] thought it prudent, as well on that as on some other accounts, to move that the service should be performed by a clergyman of that denomination." Samuel Adams to J. Warren, 9 September, 1774. John Adams says it was Cushing who made the motion that business be opened with prayer, and John Jay and Rutledge opposed it on the ground of a diversity in religious sentiments. That Samuel Adams asserted he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country; and nominated Duché. See note under September 7, post.]"
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc00110)):
(that whole thing is a link)
Notice John Jay and Rutledge's opposition to opening the session with a prayer. Also, notice Samuel Adams' response to this objection - he could hear the prayer *without being offended*.
I could go on - these two illustrations are only the tip of the iceberg. The separation of church and state provisions were intended to prevent a repeat of the state-mandated Anglican Church. They were not intended to purge all references to any deity from public discourse.
Now, to address your specific provisions...
> (Note that when I say 'support' I use it in the broadest sense, including
> but not limited to such things as the wall of a building paid for by your
> taxes is not be used as a base for broadsheets for my church's functions,
> the salary of public officials paid for by your taxes is not to be used
> for their implementing of my religions tenets or mouthing of their
> preachings, the land paid for by your taxes is not to be used for displays
> of my religion's icons. That would seem to be fair enough, wouldn't you
> say?)
Walls built with taxes are used to post flyers about all sorts of things - excluding church functions (such as Easter egg hunts or family carnivals) is a violation of equal protection under the law. (This has been found by many courts, which have ruled that high schools cannot prohibit after-school Bible clubs if they also allow other clubs.)
Restrictions on the salaries of public officials, once they receive it, is a restriction on what is now their private funds. They should be able to use that money in any legal manner they desire - whether it's traveling to our nation's capital to throw someone else's medals over a fence, or going to a "ban all abortions now" rally.
And, as far as restrictions on government land, I've covered this one many times. Just because our cultural decorations may have a basis in religion doesn't mean that they should be excluded from government grounds. And, if the city rents its stadium for a set price, it should rent it for a Metallica concert, a Billy Graham crusade, or a minor league ballgame.
So, in response to your closing question - no, that's nowhere *near* fair enough.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Triggering JCL job from other job
- Next by Date: Re: Triggering JCL job from other job
- Previous by thread: Re: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pete)
- Next by thread: Re: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pete)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
