Although I'm willing to accept some Establishment of Religion

[norml]

by our Government, as with any of our Constitutional rights some judgment is required as to how absolute any of those rights are.

I'm glad for people who bring cases like this. They hold back the establishment of a fundie theocracy.

Is there anything wrong with this position?

No, this is not a trick question.

[China_cat]

1. No, no, no, no

ANY establishment of religion by our government is unconstitutional and should be opposed by everyone.

It not only puts religion into government but it puts government into religion and is the antithesis of what the founding fathers had in mind for this country.

Religion and politics do NOT belong in any kind of proximity.

[norml]

7. Any time Government establishes religion through pledges, statuary

or funding for anything religious I think there can be some reasonableness as to what is allowed.

I don't think just making it a generic God makes it OK.

The Constitution doesn't say, shall make no law regarding an establishment of A religion.

Establishing even a generic God, through pledges, statuary, or funding, is still establishing religion.

However I'm fine with leaving it up to the Courts to decide when things have gone too far.

I agree with court decisions that allow religious symbology as part of historical architectural ornamentation, or as decoration on money.

I even agree that it's OK to have a National Cathedral in Washington D.C.

Not because I don't think it's an establishment of religion by our Government, but because I think that a little establishment of religion by the Government, just like a little gun control, is OK.

[Bridget Burke]

9. The National Cathedral in DC is not run by the government.

The idea for a national cathedral is as old as Washington itself. In 1791, when Congress selected the site to be the capital of the United States, President George Washington commissioned Major Pierre l’Enfant to design an overall plan for the future seat of government.

Included in l.Enfant's plan was a church, “intended for national purposes, such as public prayer, thanksgiving, funeral orations, etc., and assigned to the special use of no particular Sect or denomination, but equally open to all.”

The "Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul" is run by the Episcopal Diocese of DC. Private donations funded construction & our government does not pay for upkeep. It's well worth a visit if you're in DC.

www.cathedral.org/cathedral/index.shtml

Established religion is forbidden in the Constitution. The same Constitution that allowed Well Regulated Militias the right to bear arms.

[norml]

13. Oh sorry! I somehow thought the Government was involved with it.

I'd seen a National Geographic article on it a long time ago.

I forgot the details.

Well good!

Government funding of a something like a National Cathedral, even a generic one, would be going too far.

[0rganism]

2. How much is "some"?

I guess that's where it all comes down. If the government opts to stamp "In God We Trust" on its money, even leaving unanswered any question of which version of God is to be trusted, what is it saying to atheists, polytheists, and agnostics?

More importantly, in what way has anything useful been accomplished over a coin or bill without such religious exhortations?

[pepperbear]

3. How much

"establishment" are you comfortable with?

[hlthe2b]

4. THen you obviously are willing to give up the Constitution...

which specifically disallows ANY establishment of religion. What will you give up next? :shrug:

[norml]

8. It's the same as with any other amendment. The right to bear arms might

not be infringed, however even most gun nuts would agree that you can't have something that could blow up the neighborhood without some regulation.

It's the same with almost every amendment to the Constitution, that compromises are made.

[Atman]

11. Big dif. "Guns" have changed dramatically in 250 years.

Religion hasn't changed in thousands of years.

Some amount of adaptation is probably a good thing as it relates to guns, just to keep up with technology the founding fathers could not possibly have envisioned.

Religion, OTOH, they had LOTS of experience with, and it has changed absolutely nil in centuries (Vatican II doesn't count...Catholocism isn't "religion," it is A religion). The founding fathers knew exactly what they were writing about because the had experienced it.

Unlike an automatic weapon or an armor piercing bullet.

[Qibing Zero]

12. I'm having a really hard time following you

Are you being serious or just trolling? These things have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.

[norml]

16. No, I'm being serious, and I'm not trying to make a back door argument

for absolute gun rights.

My attitude on that is that at some point even the most rabid gun nut would want some regulation of things that go boom.

What they have to do with each other is as examples where things have been judged to be not quite so absolute.

Oh sure, they get around it by saying this isn't an establishment because of this, or is an establishment because of that, but it all gets back to finding exceptions to the rule.

[longship]

5. I am *not* willing to accept *any* establishment of religion.

I think Jefferson and Madison were both correct.

[shraby]

6. If you allow the government to establish a religion,

it wouldn't be too long before the government would require you to belong to that religion. Witness King Henry VIII...the Church of England...Bloody Mary.

[norml]

10. Once again, the Constitution doesn't say A religion

although that would be included in the broader prohibition.

I just see the prohibition as having the same status as many other prohibitions in the Constitution.

There are exceptions to other Constitutional prohibitions, aren't there?

Of course the Courts shouldn't allow anything that goes too far.

That's their job.

[China_cat]

18. The Puritan colonies, for that matter.

You could not own land, you could not vote, you were subject to fines, jailing and even death if you did not belong to the church.

And that's JUST what would happen again if we say 'oh well, just a -little- establishment isn't that bad'. American Taliban with christianic shar'ia laws.

[Walt Starr]

14. Actually, settling it in the courts is the right thing to do.

And Democratic Senators can congresspeople can still sponsor legislation to "Save the Pledge" while not altering the outcome of such cases whatosever.

[norml]

17. But I don't want to "Save the Pledge" I'd rather have it the old way.

I'm just trying to make a practical as well as a philosophical argument on this issue.

However I think I'm being misunderstood.

Being accused of fweeperhood (not by you) is a sure sign of that.

I think I'll go for a swim and get back to this later.

After all, it is my one day off.

[Cleita]

15. I think you are confused. Religion has no place in our

secular government. However, to ban religion only makes it stronger, creates martyrs and so on, so people should be free to practice whatever religion they choose to. However, government shouldn't make laws based on religious moral teachings.

So what do the freeps think?