http://pacer.utm.edu/2657.htm
New federal mandate prompts celebration of the Constitution
Heather Day
Staff Writer
Volume 78, Issue 5
There were many issues discussed during the American Democracy Project,
both by students and panelists alike. The main subject was the Constitution
and different amendments therein. Issues discussed included the right to
bear arms, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and
the Constitution as a whole.
As you may remember, there was a great debate over the Second amendment in
the 2000 election because of the recent school shootings. This turned into
a debate on federal gun control. But the question is: Should the government
have the right to regulate gun control? Militia was also discussed as part
of the amendment. I especially liked one student’s response to this
discussion. He said that, “We should have the right to protect ourselves
and our families. It is not guns that kill people, people kill people.”
Freedom of speech and of the press were then discussed as students
expressed their opinions on the subject. Panelist Kevin Teets made the
statement, “Free press is important and we should fight for that right.”
Freedom of religion ended up being one of the most debated issues, as many
students stood and expressed their opinion on the subject. This question
was asked to panelist Dr. David Coffee, who said that the Constitution
“makes no specific mention of separation of church and state, it is just
implied.”
Freedom of religion gives everyone, no matter what their religion, the
chance to worship however they please without fear or tyranny, or one
person forcing their religion on another. A public school cannot mandate
religious expression, however; it does not prevent students from praying or
reading their Bible in school if that is what they choose to do. One
panelist said that, “It is not the state’s responsibility to make up for
parents’ shortcomings as far as religious beliefs go.”
One student asked if the removal of the Ten Commandments is an attack on
religion. The panelists’ response to this was that the Ten Commandments
“are not a universal belief. They tend to be identified with Christianity
and therefore may be offensive to others of different religions.” But they
also said that “no one is infringing on your right to pray or worship as
you please. No one will come to your home or church and tell you how to
worship. But in a public place one group’s religion cannot be overly
established due to the separation of church and state law, which was
established by precedent.”
One student said that “religion is about maturity. We have the right to
choose how we believe.”
Responses to the American Democracy Project as a whole varied. Freshman
Jamie Pigg said she “didn’t really get that much out of it.” But others
enjoyed the experience. Freshman Gary Mason said that the discussion “gave
me a positive outlook on the Constitution. I learned a lot.”
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.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 [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
****************************************************************
.
|
