Why isn't this being talked about in the mainstream media? Take that R.C.P. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48006
If you don't want to separate church and state, you then have to contend with other religions wanting to run the state. Sounds like fun. We could use some holy wars over here.
I just believe the whole deal with separation of church and state didn't mean to take the word God off money. The designers of this didn't want a Church of England type deal where if you weren't a member of that church, you were spat upon and discriminated against. We have laws that cover discrimination though. If you a Jew, Muslim, you can't be discriminated against. Having the word God in the Pledge of Alliegence does not infringe on anyone's rights. Church and state are separated and schools are equal now. Are we better off?
Will it be also be OK if a muslim judge hung the laws of Mohammad in a court house? How about a Native American judge hanging the trappings of pagan religions in the court? This could happen in this country. The ten commandments are Jewish religious laws, not civil laws and just don't belong in a secular courtroom. Atheists like martin might feel that they would not get a fair hearing in such a court. I do note an exception. One of the courthouse 10 Commandments was part of an exhibit of historical and religious laws outside on the courthouse grounds. The laws of Hammurabi, Greek Laws, the Magna Carta, and others were also commemorated on monuments. This is something I see no problem with. But the Ten Commandments hanging over the shoulder of a judge in a courtroom is the interjection of religious sentiment into what must be an impartial arena. Appearances are important.
But Christians will tell you that doesn't matter since they are the majority in this country. What gets me is that a lot of these folks pushing for the adjoining of Church and state are the very ones wanting to go blow up other theocracies. I guess since it's not 'their' theocracy...
Lay off the Thomas Jefferson angle rex. It has already been shown to be taken out of context and in some cases completely made up. Find another example please. Thank you.
I understand all of the trappings of this slippery slope. Blanket law of the land though, like the 1st Amendment freedom of speech has limits. Just like taking God off money.......I don't think that is what the framers meant.
The Danbury Baptist Church wrote Jefferson a letter precisely for that reason: to explain the intention of the First Amendment. How can that be taken out of context? That's just your dishonesty speaking again. Second question: why do you feel it necessary to resort to dishonesty? It's very apparent you want a state religion in spite of what founders like Jefferson said. Jefferson would have defended your right to speaking your mind in opposition, so it's not like you have to lie about what he said. And you don't have to cower away from your own feelings on message boards, either.
To me, I see many people having problems with Christian symbols than Christians have with Muslim or Jewish symbols. In general. When the crazy dude brings up lawsuits every week on behalf of his daughter to get God out of the Pledge......he has no beef with the Muslim God or the Jewish God. It's the Christian God that he has a problem with. I don't want to push for making Christianity the government sanctioned religion here and most don't. I just don't see the big, overwhelming need to take the word God off our money. What pisses me off is when people pick and choose which part of the law or Constitution that suits them. All for no limits on freedom of speech but when other Constitutional items are being trounced on, they have no problem with that.
