quote:

Sticking the 10 commandments on the wall should be no more a special case than a DARE poster, with that famous phrase: "This, is your BRAIN.

Do you really want the government to have recommendatory authority over which God is your God, which God you are to set before the other Gods, whether or not you are permitted to make a graven image and bow down to it, and whether or not you remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

quote:

For a document, speech, action, or activity to be singled out because of its Christian nature appears to me a direct violation of the first amendment, because a law that restricts them is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The right is to exercise your sentiments regarding the duty which you owe to your Creator as dictated by your conscience and convictions, not the suggestions of the Civil Magistrate. If you keep the religious commandments of the Ten Commandments at the suggestion of the government rather than according to the dictates of your conscience, you don't honor the Almighty, you scandalize him and degrade his religion.

quote:

Originally posted by FredFlash:

quote:

As to your claim that "back in those days, most Americans believed a law that made God its object was treason against the Kingdom of Christ," this is not the impression I get from my reading.

Have you read the letter of the Danbury Baptists to President Thomas Jefferson wherein the Baptists commend President Jefferson for not daring to "assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ?"

Yes.

Barton's work, [I]Original Intent[I/], which you earlier dismissed as "full of crap," compared both the letter and Jefferson's response. As it has been several years since my reading, I re-read it.

http://www.awakenamerica.org/article02.html

After reading the letter in its entirity. The phrase you cited is in the second main paragraph, towards the end. In that paragraph, the Baptists first stated that their "sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor." Now to me, this reads: "A person should be able to decide for himself what God expects of him (one of the more basic Protestant lines) and that the civil government (including the judicial branch) should not pass no laws (or make no rulings) that prohibit a person from following his religious convictions [I]with the exception[I/] that those actions should bring harm to a neighbor (for example, the practice of human sacrifice is definately on the "no" list because it breaks other laws, like do not murder).

The Baptists then complain that, even though they are currently recieving an acceptable level of religious tolerance (no one is declaring that we shall all be Methodists), this freedom they "enjoy as favors granted, not as inalienable rights." They also have to put up with "degrading acknowledgements," etc.

"It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

Since the Danbury Baptists were a minority denomination in their particular region, someone trying to win favors with the majority denominations, "in the name of religion," but really for their own political gain would be a bad guy, because to make civil laws that dictate the practices of religious worship would be making "laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ" (the practice seems quite common in today's politics, actions in the name of the Great Ideal of Something-or-other in order to win votes) Notice, the phrase does not read: "religious edicts to govern the Kingdom of Man." The idea that the Baptists were trying to communicate is, perhaps, a paraphrase of Paul's teaching in Romans 14, where he tells Christians to stop squabling over "opinions," or "disputable matters" in some tranlations.

"But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgement seat of God. For it is written, 'As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, And every tounge shall give praise to God.' So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God" (Romans 14:10-12 NASU).

It is my opinion that this letter, along with Jefferson's reply, confirms my interpretation of the first amendment. The 'wall' keeps government out of the churches, including one church denomination trying to get at another denomination through government.

quote:

My guess is he is referring to the numerous court cases that have used this notion as precedence for passing a particular restriction on religious exercise.

What percentage of all the Supreme Court Opinions regarding the meaning of the First Amendment's religious causes have even mentioned the "wall of separation?"

quote:

Perhaps these don't come to mind as readily for everyone, but for many in the Christian community, the "no prayer in school" and other incidents are like a "remember the Alamo."

What Supreme Court ever ruled "no prayer in school?"