<buckeyeELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:i1def1h62og9c5okvv7r3gp73qgo1apdc7@4ax.com...

1st Amendment, Bush, "Christian Nation."


THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IN ADDITION TO PRECLUDING MOST
government censorship, also prohibits the making of any law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. The body of
the
Constitution also prohibits any "religious test" for office.

These rights and restrictions have sometimes appeared to be in conflict.
When the Supreme Court has prohibited organized prayer in public schools,
at graduations, and before football games, some have claimed that their
right to free exercise has been curtailed. Others claim that the
prohibition on teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution
abridges
the freedom of speech of religious fundamentalists. As I will try to show
in these chapters, religious speech is quite different from other kinds of
speech. We encourage argument - even disrespectful and rude argument -
about politics, science, art, and literature. But honest disagreements
about religion are out of bounds in most schools. Disrespectful criticism
of particular religions is regarded as bigotry (although religious people
are free to be disrespectful toward atheists and agnostics). Imagine an
elementary school class in which Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim
students argued about which was the true faith. Or imagine how an atheist
or agnostic student would be treated by his peers and teachers if he
expressed belief that God did not exist or that God was not good or that
religion is immoral.

Actually, it isn't necessary to resort to the imagination. President
George
W Bush's inauguration was opened by a Protestant Evangelist minister
officially dedicating the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared
to
be "our savior." Invoking "the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ,"
and
"the Holy Spirit," Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President
George
W Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans
who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and
atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language.

The plain message conveyed by the Bush administration is that George W
Bush's America is a Christian nation, and that non-Christians are welcome
into the tent so long as they agree to accept their status as a tolerated
minority rather than as fully equal citizens. In effect, Bush is saying:
"This is our home, and in our home we pray to Jesus as our savior. If you
want to be a guest in our home, you must accept the way we pray."

But the United States is neither a Christian nation nor the exclusive home
of any particular religious group. Non-Christians are not guests. We are
as
much hosts as any Mayflower-descendant Protestant. It is our home as well
as theirs. And in a home with so many owners, there can be no official
sectarian prayer. That is what the First Amendment is all about, and the
first act by the new administration was in defiance of our Constitution.

This was surely not the first time in our long history that Jesus has been
invoked at an official governmental assembly. But we are a different and
more religiously diverse nation than we were in years past. There are now
many more Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and others who do not accept Jesus as
their savior. It is permissible in the United States to reject any
particular theology. Indeed, that is part of our glorious diversity. What
is not acceptable is for a presidential inauguration to exclude millions
of
citizens from its opening ceremony by dedicating it to a particular
religious "savior."

Our first president, George Washington, wrote to the tiny Jewish community
in Rhode Island that in this new nation, we will no longer speak of mere
"toleration," because toleration implies that minorities enjoy their
inherent rights "by the indulgence" of the majority. President Bush should
read that letter and show it to the Reverend Franklin Graham, who told the
media on the day before the inauguration that his prayer "will be for
unity": instead, it was for the Trinity. Uniting for Jesus may be Graham's
definition of unity, but it is as un-American as if a rabbi giving the
official prayer had prayed for the arrival of the "true Messiah," thus
insulting the millions of Christians who believe Jesus is the true
Messiah.

Inaugurations are not the appropriate setting for theological
proclamations
of who is, and who is not, the true Messiah. Perhaps at Bob Jones
University it is appropriate for an honorary degree recipient to declare
Jesus to be the only king of the United States, but the steps of the
Capitol should not be confused with the lectern of a denominational
church.

The inauguration ended with another Protestant minister inviting all who
agree that Jesus is "the Christ" to say "Amen." Senator Joseph Lieberman
(D-Conn.), along with many others who do not believe that Jesus is the
Messiah, was put in the position of either denying his own faith or
remaining silent while others around him all said, "Amen." This is
precisely the position in which young public school students are placed
when "voluntary" prayer is conducted at school events. If they join in
prayer that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs, they have been
coerced into violating their conscience. If they leave or refuse to join,
they stand out as different among their peers. No student should be put in
that position by his or her public school at an assembly, just as no
public
official should be placed in that situation by the government at an
inauguration.

We live in a country in which organized religion is falsely associated
with
personal morality. Many Americans honestly believe that only religious
people can be moral, since religion is the source of morals. As I will try
to show in these essays, there is no empirical or historical basis for
this
false association. But the fact remains that most Americans believe it,
and
therefore honest debate about religion is seen as out-of bounds in many
quarters. Once, in a debate with a religious fundamentalist about teaching
the Bible in public schools, I proposed - for argument's sake - the
following compromise: teach the Bible, but also teach Thomas Paine's The
Age of Reason alongside the Bible. The Age of Reason is a mocking rebuttal
to the Bible that, while extremely superficial, reflects the rhetorical
flair of the great propagandist that Paine was. The fundamentalist was
shocked at my proposal and rejected it immediately, out of fear that it
might shake the faith of young people. The last thing religious
fundamentalists want is an open and honest debate about faith. The only
thing they want is one-sided religious propaganda preached from the pulpit
of the teacher's desk and the principal's office.

In the following chapters, I will try to show how the wall of separation
between church and state has worked well for organized religion, for the
state, and for religious dissidents. It is not broken. We should not try
to
fix it by tearing it down.
SOURCE: Shouting Fire, Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age, Alan M.
Dershowitz, Little Brown and Company, Boston, NY, London, (2002)
pp. 201-203

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]

For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join

NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/

Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/

***************************************************************

. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .

****************************************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

This site is a member of the following web rings:

Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

American History WebRing--&--The History Ring

Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring

Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring

****************************************************************

Anything beats an *atheist Nation*and I know the majority would agree :-)

So the prohibitions of 1st Amendment of the federal BOR on
"government" applies, logically, only to the federal government and
not to the states.

buckeyeELO@nospam.net wrote:

1st Amendment, Bush, "Christian Nation."


THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IN ADDITION TO PRECLUDING MOST
government censorship, also prohibits the making of any law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. The body of the
Constitution also prohibits any "religious test" for office.

As usual, you are ignoring that the Founding Fathers made a significant
distinction between the duties of the federal and state governments.

buckeyeELO@nospam.net wrote:

1st Amendment, Bush, "Christian Nation."


THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IN ADDITION TO PRECLUDING MOST government
censorship, also prohibits the making of any law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. The body of
the Constitution also prohibits any "religious test" for office.

As usual, you are ignoring that the Founding Fathers made a significant
distinction between the duties of the federal and state governments.

buckeyeELO@nospam.net wrote:

1st Amendment, Bush, "Christian Nation."


THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IN ADDITION TO PRECLUDING MOST
government censorship, also prohibits the making of any law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. The body of the
Constitution also prohibits any "religious test" for office.

As usual, you are ignoring that the Founding Fathers made a significant
distinction between the duties of the federal and state governments.
Even Thomas Jefferson reflected these distinctions in his writings:

"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

So the prohibitions of 1st Amendment of the federal BOR on "government"
applies, logically, only to the federal government and not to the
states. Indeed the 1st Amendmendment prohibits Congress, and only
Congress, from doing certain things. It is only because of
separationist political correctness that the judicial branch of the
federal government is unconstitutionally imposing the 1st Amendment's
prohibitions on the federal government on the states.

The bottom line is that if US citizens understood the relationship
between the 1st and 10th Amendments where the "government's" power to
address religion is concerned then we'd probably see a lot of needed
changes to the system. This essay explains the 1st and 10th Amendment
as they relate to the states' unique power to address religion:

http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm

These rights and restrictions have sometimes appeared to be in conflict.
When the Supreme Court has prohibited organized prayer in public schools,
at graduations, and before football games, some have claimed that their
right to free exercise has been curtailed. Others claim that the
prohibition on teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution abridges

<snipped for brevity>

buckeyeELO@nospam.net wrote:

1st Amendment, Bush, "Christian Nation."


THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IN ADDITION TO PRECLUDING MOST
government censorship, also prohibits the making of any law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. The body of the
Constitution also prohibits any "religious test" for office.

First Amendment has nothing to do with censorship. There is a long
history in congress and the founders censoring certain offensive or
inflaming speech. All the 1st Amendment does is gurantee congress will
not abridge the freedom of speech, that is tell you to shut-up and not
say anything--and the 14th amendment protects the people from States
enacting laws that would outright abridge speech. You can't prohibit
religious tests of office since in reality that is in the hands of the
voters...voters may well prefer a christian candidate over a atheist
:-)

These rights and restrictions have sometimes appeared to be in conflict.
When the Supreme Court has prohibited organized prayer in public schools,
at graduations, and before football games, some have claimed that their
right to free exercise has been curtailed.

Not me, I simply state the obivious: the court was without one ounce of
Constitutional authority to base their prohibitation upon! People are
perfectly free to ignore and laugh at such rulings since it will get
overturned once it reaches the court again with O'Conner gone.