http://www.filefactory.com/?c8dac9

Thats a paper I wrote for class. Definantly not the best paper in the world, but its a topic to talk about.

As far as where I stand on the matter... First I was leaning one way, then the other, then back to where I was. Its pretty obvious to me that they need to stay seperate. Its just the degree of separation.

I think they should be allowed to display the ten commandments in the public places, and in schools.

What many people think Separation of Church and State means people of the Church should not have stand in Goverment. Are you saying you agree?

Separation of Church and state is absolutely needed... If we didn't have it we would be no better then those Extremist Islamic countries in the mid-east... We don't have Crusades or Jihads err whatever.. We fight for whatever we think is right, no matter what religions are prodominate.

I don't see it the way you do. When Separation of Church and State was added to the amendment it did not mean the people of the Church should be in Goverment, but the Goverment shell not have the power to dictate the religion of the nation.

Ps. I got banned from posting at acmlm's in a thread like this... the mod not liking me didn't help either.

Its ok, The Establishment clause Which is in the first ammendment states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

SOooo, its clear the goverment can't have a state religion... Like lets say Britian. But its not clear whether the goverment can support christianity.

Or there are issues like providing a military chaplain... SOme people say that violates the establishment clause. But some people say it violates it if the military DOESN"T provide them a chaplain. Just complicated issues like that.

and of course DNG, there has to be seperation to a degree.

Ummmmmmm I know the link to my paper is hard to get too. Just have to keep on keeping on.

I read you paper, it's confused. You seemed to know a lot about the subject, but aren't sure exactly where you stand.

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." ~Cornell Law School

DNG is being over dramatic.

For all who debate this subject, you're fighting a never ending battle.

Well the paper wasn't exactly supposed to be an opinion paper... I was trying to stun my teacher with my unpartiallity. Or somthing like that. I don't know about sensless.

There is a fine line between what might violate the ammendment and what doesn't. Look at the Patriot act?

Originally posted by Bookworm

---

I don't see it the way you do. When Separation of Church and State was added to the amendment it did not mean the people of the Church should be in Goverment, but the Goverment shell not have the power to dictate the religion of the nation.

Ps. I got banned from posting at acmlm's in a thread like this... the mod not liking me didn't help either.

---

I really think that was what it was getting at as well.

the ten commandments aren't just religious. i consider them more of an ethical code of conduct rather than religious guidelines. as for separation of church and state, it needs to be stricter. i'm one of the people against the pledge of alligience for the controversial words "under G-d." i think that enough of the population in this country has an issue with those words so the pledge should be changed. but i also hate the pledge because the words have become meaningless...

The Ten Commandments are certainly religious doctrine in and of themselves. But they do serve a deeper meaning if you look at them from a non-religious point of view...at least most of them do. Feel free to skip over the stuff about keeping the Sabbath, worshiping only one deity, etc. All of the realistic phrases can be applied to everyday life.

I realize this is an old thread but since it was revived, I do have one major point to add...

If you put the Ten Commandments in my school, I expect to see the Eleven Rules Of The Earth next to it, as well as all other doctrines. Fair representation for all religions, not just Christianity. This IS, after all, a country with freedom of religion. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. So, all or nothing.

and ignorance rears its ugly head again.

The 10 commandments are NOT Christian. Jesus preached a much more involved set of rules than what was given to Moses.

The 10 commandments are actually Jewish. So maybe we should also display the sermon on the mount or something similar to counter-act the Jewish over representation.


Just felt like clarifying that in an over-dramatic fashion.

This topic is tough because this Country was built by religious people. Pilgrims came here and they were religious and they grew and became more organized and at first it was just the little U.S. 13 colonies. Very religious. The pledge is "Under God" because the people that founded this country and organized it were religious and people fought for these freedoms because they believed that it was God that set this land apart for people to live their lives the way they wanted.

It's tough because if you take "Under God" out it's not fair to religious people, if you keep it in it's not fair to people who don't believe in God. But that is how this Country was started, so it was pretty much first come first serve.

I dunno. It's too difficult to discuss because there will never be a solution that will please anyone. I think that if you are willing to fight for the freedoms that the US has that makes you American whether you are religious or not. I think it's ok to not say under god if you don't want to, or say it if you do. Taking it out would have people miss it and if it is in there, it's easy to ignore.

Originally posted by Cookieman003

---

I think it's ok to not say under god if you don't want to, or say it if you do. Taking it out would have people miss it and if it is in there, it's easy to ignore.

---

I agree with this. People can simply not say it, or even replace it with "Under Allah" or whatever. If it's what they honestly believe, then I fail to see how it can make the pledge any less valid.

Exactly. I just think people that want it there way or the high way are ignorant in the fact that you can easily say what you believe or not.

For myself, I personally say under God because I believe in God myself.

Yes, religion is an important part in peoples lives, but it shouldn't be used to decide the fate of people who commit deeds some people may find wrong. Firstly, it's aggravating when people picket with signs saying, "God hates the faggot soldiers" when the troops are the ones preventing these peoples' demise.

It's also very annoying when religion is applied in schools, and when it interrupts learning; for example, John Green's "Looking for Alaska" was banned from being taught for a few years because it was sinful and "portrayed sexual descriptions".

Unfortunately, in the Dark Ages, Church was higher than state, but nowadays it's obviously different, and the church doesn't have as much of an impact.

Religion and law are two different things and they don't belong together in society.

The people that picket against "faggot soldiers" and just ignorant, that is judging others and that is not their job. Being religious, they should know that only God can judge them. There are a lot of self righteous people out there. I'm religious myself, but I'm not narrow minded about things.

But John Green's "Looking for Alaska" isn't really banned for the "sinful" part. I believe it was banned more so for the "sexual descriptions". It was banned because people don't want their kids readings something like that at their age. But now that it is allowed in school (I'm guessing it is since you said it "was banned from being taught for a few years") they always leave it an option on whether or not you want to read it or not due to your parents or religious beliefs.

In the Dark Ages, it was that Church was what made law. Anything different in mind and morals lead to jail or even death. But yes, nowadays it's totally different. It's become a lot more complicated since the government became a democracy, it's very hard to find a common ground when there are so many point of views on how fair, safe and good living should be.

Very difficult subject.

True, but we have enough emotional depth at age 17 to be reading it in class. We're not 5 anymore and people need to realize that.

That is very true too. But, legally, it is up to your parents ultimately until you are 18. So, it has its checks and balances.

If you're 17, you wanna read it, but your parents won't let you, you can't. If you're parents let you, you can. That rule isn't made by church values, its legal to the fact that your parents have custody of you until 18 by law. (I'm kinda guessing that's the age, because you can be on your own with the ability to do anything to live on your own.)

If you're in high school and you are 18, then it really doesn't matter. You can read it if you want to, or you read it if you don't want to. Teachers can do nothin' about it.

They actually ban that kind of educational stuff over there, even for "kids" in their late teens? I had a whole chapter dedicated to it in my biology book, in junior high school. Pictures and all.

Please note the following books were banned, AND they were banned mostly from PUBLIC schools by complaints from PRIVATE SCHOOLS. Church has to stop overlapping State.
List of banned books (or were banned at some point) that shouldn't be:
`The Golden Compass {Religious reference}
`Strangers In Paradise { Lesbianism/ homosexuality }†1
`And Tango Makes Three { Homosexuality }†2
`The Freedom Writers' Diary [ ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME? ] {Racial Slurs/sexual content}
`The Giver {References Euthanasia (Assisted suicide w/pills)}
`The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn { Racism}
________________
~Strangers In Paradise was banned because the main plot involves two women who fall in love with each other. In my opinion, if someone likes someone, let them like them, and leave them alone.
~It's about two male penguins who raise a child. I understand where the 'bible' is coming from, but it's a children's book and yes, even though the Church doesn't think Homosexuality is a normal part of nature, it actually is.

These books were mostly complained about by private schools or churches within each state. I am not bashing Christianity, so don't think that, but I'm just saying they're getting too nosy now. They want to DECIDE who we love, what we say, what we do, and now they want to decide what we READ? Nope, no thanks.

There's gotta be something done about this. LAW is much more powerful than the Church and it should stay that way. Too many wars were caused because of religion and I don't wanna see another one happen.