NY Times Magazine article Options

[Blakjak]

If anybody has acces to the NY Times magazine available with the sunday NY Times should read the article about separation of church and state in there, it's a very interesting proposal.

[holden_caulfield]

If anybody has acces to the NY Times magazine available with the sunday NY Times should read the article about separation of church and state in there, it's a very interesting proposal.

Didn't they just start charging customers to read their stuff online? bastards

[Blakjak]

I get the actual paper, no idea about online.

[Druid]

holden_caulfield you can register for free to read it online

[holden_caulfield]

Thanks Druid. I used my existing account. (I could have sworn one of my teachers had said they were starting to charge.)

In any case, I assume Blakjak was referring to the July 4 op-ed about the Supreme Court and the future church-state issues it will have to deal with now that O'Connor is stepping down?

[Druid]

Holden BJ is talking about this
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html
Heading is "Church state solution"'

Or if you went through the free signup here is a direct link
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/magazine/03CHURCH.html

The article is well written and not biased as I assumed it would be.

My thoughts on the subject would be most of the debate misses the meaning and ideals set forth by the framers of the Constitution, not just the people who singed it
If you ever spent time reading supporting documentation of the Constitution ( Federalist papers, personal corespondents, etc )
The Constitution's is in 2 parts.
The Articles which setup the FEDERAL government
The bill of rights which limits the power of the FEDERAL government as a way to protect it's citizens.
For me this one of the most important parts but is also the most overlooked.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Which brings me to some of the dumbest Supreme Court rulings regarding seperation of church and state.
In a Kentucy courthouse a framed copy of the Ten Commandments was declared unconstutional. The exact same court ruled a monumment of the Ten Comandments at a Texas Courthouse didn't violate the Constitution.
What the hell where they thinking? Was it a backwards Rock-Paper-Scissors decision, where rock beat paper?
In my opinion neither violated the constitution because they were both STATE courthouse. The only thing it could of violated was their individual STATE constitutions and thats only if it addressed speration of Church/state on the STATE level.

Here is a copy of Cheif Justie Rehnquist's opinion on the Texas case.
I think it sums up my point rather well
The State should accommodate religion, but should not endorse it. It could be argued that the Constitution only prohibits the establishment of a state church. Even with government endorsement, religious freedom is not harmed as long as there is no government enforcement. And even then, according to Christianity Today , “the closer church and state get, the more the church looks like the state.” So, we theists have more to fear from a state church.

But it is our belief that “the Constitutions do not demand that the State of Texas remove the Ten Commandments monument. In fact, the Constitutions demand the opposite, that the State allow such a display,” and the Court agrees.

Funny thing is the court had almost the exact opposite decision in regards to Kentucy.
Idiots

[Blakjak]

I found the coercion argument very convincing. I previosuly was very confused about this topic, even after having done a semester's worth of reasearch on it for a competition. This article was not only informative but also seemed to be aimed at reconciling the nation, something lacking these days. I should post an article written by a friend on mine published in the AJC editorial, it's along those same lines.

[holden_caulfield]

According to Feldman, I fall under the legal secularist category. From my point of view, as a reasonable citizen, Feldman's proposal makes sense and I'd be willing to support it so long as I am assured that those on the other side of the debate are people like me, reasonable citizens. Most reasonable people seem to get along fine despite their differences.

But I am not so sure that we are all reasonable. I am not so sure that allowing public symbols but restricting public finance would satisfy either side, especially the values evangelists, because I do not trust those who lead them. The last thing on Pat Robertson's mind is inclusion.

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991

That's in reference to his fellow Christians. Now, one can write off Pat Robertson as an extremist, but that would be dangerous, since he garners the support of millions of people, people who I feel would, if they had the chance, marginalize people like me in a heartbeat. Thus, the only defense, from the legal secularist point of view, is to be vigilant and resolute in the courts.

Earlier I said that I would support Feldman's argument on practical terms, but it is indeed a sacrifice made in the name of reconciliation. If public symbols mean so much to the religous right, how can one so easily dismiss their importance to the irreligious?

[Blakjak]

Holden it's just a matter of coercion. I wouldn't have minded if a Christian prayer was said at the beginning of our high school soccer games, just so long as I didn't have to say it. I don't say the pledge of allegiance but I'll stand out of repect for the flag. However, I do share your feelings on the marginalization of the secular legalists and that would be something that would have to be addressed.

[holden_caulfield]

This is somewhat oblique, but I never understood the concept of group prayer. Prayer is a time to communicate to God as an individual. Whoever came up with the idea of... let's all send send him the same message at the same time... idiot. And then the people who get worked up about this issue of public prayer in school, bigger idiots.

They're like insecure people banding together to reaffirm their solidarity.

[Silver]

group prayer = stronger faith (i guess)

im not big into chruch but i do believe.
i probably should go to church

reason i say this is i have seen some crazy shit (some could be taken as coinsidence(?) but all together it adds up as a higher power no matter what you believe.

I would tell you a story but I am sure you are not intrested. actually a few that revolve around odd things connected to christanity and spirt world stuff.

i know i should not be here at all. should be (9/8) 6 years dead. so should my wife...

[Frosty]

Group prayer is about unity among Christians. A group af people approaching God with the same desire on their hearts, if you like.

[Druid]

We have openly discussed politics forever, now we move onto the touchy subject of religion.
God ( or insert your chosen entity here ) help us now.

[Frosty]

It is actually possible to have a civil discussion about religion. We had one at the Basement. But it's usually not very productive to talk about religion over the internet.

[Silver]

i wasnt talking i was rattling...sorry ill leave now...