tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post6599755663093462888..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Christians: The ACLU is not your friendLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger138125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-62748331556631689802011-06-10T00:40:48.120-07:002011-06-10T00:40:48.120-07:00Also, I want to congratulate you on the fine blog ...<i>Also, I want to congratulate you on the fine blog you have developed and the spirited, contemplative, civil discourse you encourage here. You plainly have the right touch.</i><br /><br />Awww, shucks! Thanks, Doug! What a sweet comment. So sweet in fact that I will let you have that last comment without rebuttal. :)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-51595127109047314502011-06-09T23:01:54.208-07:002011-06-09T23:01:54.208-07:00Stacy,
I've seen the headlines, but haven'...Stacy,<br /><br />I've seen the headlines, but haven't studied the details, so can't offer much about it. (I generally focus more on discussing the general principles than the application of those principles to particular cases anyway.) That said, I think the critical question is whether Perry is acting in his individual or official capacity. While his religion naturally may inform his views in performing his official duties, he should refrain from promoting religion in his official capacity. When acting in that capacity, he effectively is the government and, accordingly, should act in keeping with the First Amendment's constraints on government promotion of religion.<br /><br />I'm reminded that some of the founders were conflicted about much the same sort of thing. For instance, while Washington offered Thanksgiving proclamations, seemingly seeing no problem in that, Jefferson refrained from issuing any such proclamations for the very reason he thought the Constitution precluded it. Madison would have preferred not to issue any such proclamations, but upon being requested by Congress to do so, reluctantly issued one, though taking pains to word it so as merely to encourage those so inclined to celebrate the day. He later almost sheepishly acknowledged that had been a mistake.<br /><br />I suspect that Perry is most interested in scoring political points with religious right voters and, with the help of clever advisors, will carefully choose his words in order to curry favor with those voters while at the same time largely (or at least arguably) stopping short of crossing an obvious constitutional line.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-11636664923784526472011-06-09T17:28:59.461-07:002011-06-09T17:28:59.461-07:00Doug,
What are your thoughts on Rick Perry's ...Doug,<br /><br />What are your thoughts on Rick Perry's call to prayer in Texas?<br /><br />StacyStacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-81043725873582110282011-06-09T17:00:20.715-07:002011-06-09T17:00:20.715-07:00Leila, From a legal standpoint, of course, it mat...Leila, From a legal standpoint, of course, it matters little whether this guy is a jerk trying to make a statement. Your gripes about him touch on three issues. First, is he making a mountain out of a mole hill? Or, put differently, should someone give the government a pass when it engages in "little" unconstitutional acts? In his Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison urged vigilance against seemingly small infractions: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"<br /><br />Second, your interest in whether the plaintiff was truly harmed or offended brings to mind the commonly heard idea that this somehow is about people easily offended or faking offense. We’re not talking, though, about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; we have that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that--regardless of whether anyone is offended (and regardless of how many or few favor or disfavor any particular religion or religious event). While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives--small government conservatives--should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with "standing" (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to present the court with a "case or controversy"; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government's failure to follow the law. The question whether someone has standing to sue is separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.<br /><br />Third, you speak of people with an agenda to wipe God out of the public square. While the principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square, as I noted earlier, it is sometimes misunderstood or misused by some on both "sides" either to stretch it to cover situations it properly doesn't or to restrict it from covering situations it properly does. Properly applied, the principle serves to protect the freedom of all individuals to exercise their religion views, whether theism, atheism, or other, by assuring the government is neutral in such matters and leaves each person to make his or her own choices regarding religion free of government influence.<br /><br />Also, I want to congratulate you on the fine blog you have developed and the spirited, contemplative, civil discourse you encourage here. You plainly have the right touch.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90574761099983776962011-06-09T13:38:53.167-07:002011-06-09T13:38:53.167-07:00Doug, I appreciate that, I do. But you can agree t...Doug, I appreciate that, I do. But you can agree that this guy's case was just an attempt to be a jerk and make a statement, correct? He and his family and his attorney know he would not be harmed in any way by hearing a prayer at graduation. <br /><br />Some lawsuits are frivolous, some are outrageous, some are ill-adivised. People with an agenda to wipe God out of the public square will throw up anything just to see what sticks. In this case, they got one sympathetic judge (judges, not politicians, will be the ruin of this nation… I don't think most people understand that). Thankfully, he was overruled.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-12860275753728391082011-06-09T13:29:49.511-07:002011-06-09T13:29:49.511-07:00Leila, I can understand how that claim strikes yo...Leila, I can understand how that claim strikes you as outrageous. There's a less nefarious, more historical explanation you may find interesting (or boring). Centuries ago courts of equity developed in England as alternative forums to courts of law to resolve disputes. Courts of equity could issue injunctions ordering people to do or not do things; they generally could not award money damages to litigants, leaving that to courts of law. Courts of equity, though, would not hear a case if the litigant had an adequate remedy at law (usually money damages). In order to get an injunction, thus, the rule has long since been developed that a litigant must allege that he has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer "irreparable harm" (i.e., harm that cannot be remedied by money damages) unless some activity is enjoined.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-11215920015949432032011-06-09T09:55:05.894-07:002011-06-09T09:55:05.894-07:00Doug, what I find "inexplicably outrageous&qu...Doug, what I find "inexplicably outrageous" is the fact that the kid and family were claiming <b>"irreparable harm"</b> by attending a graduation where a prayer may or not be said.<br /><br />Step outside the legal world for a minute and admit with me that such a claim is indeed <i>outrageous</i>.<br /><br />You have certainly seen outrageous suits brought before the courts before, no? I know you are very interested in the legal details, but you still have common sense, I know it.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-35246470794487150012011-06-09T09:34:50.744-07:002011-06-09T09:34:50.744-07:00Leila, the district court's decision appears s...Leila, the district court's decision appears so inexplicably outrageous to you because you see, I think, only one half of the issue it confronted. You see only the student who wants to speak freely from the heart. If that were all there is to it, the matter would be as easy as you suppose. The court, though, needed to review the actions of the school (i.e., government) and, viewing the entirety of the situation, determine whether it was promoting religion by, for instance, assembling students in a school sponsored event ("captive audience") for the purpose of having them participate in prayer or other religious ceremony.<br /><br />In the Texas case, the district court viewed the evidence and found that was what the school was doing, and issued an injunction. The appellate court, applying the same legal principles, simply found that the evidence was insufficient to show that and suggested, moreover, the matter appeared moot since the school had modified its public description of the graduation ceremony to delete references to "invocation" and "benediction."<br /><br />If you're interested in digging deeper into public school and religion issues, here's a handy starting point. http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/first/teachersguide/teachersguide.pdfDoug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-1529571201775574612011-06-04T08:58:08.000-07:002011-06-04T08:58:08.000-07:00http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/03/texas-s...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/03/texas-senator-blasts-judges-decision-to-forbid-public-prayer-at-high-school/<br /><br />Update on my last comment. Thank God that common sense has prevailed.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-37225771690454927192011-06-02T16:53:45.040-07:002011-06-02T16:53:45.040-07:00http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02/prayer-prohib...http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02/prayer-prohibited-at-graduation-ceremony/?test=latestnews<br /><br />Michelle, please check out this story. "Irreparable harm"?? Seriously? Even you admit that is full on BS, as no one is "harmed" much less "irreparably" so. Ugh! Do you see, Michelle, that this is nuts? Please tell me you do not support this malcontented family and this outrageous judge. Please tell me that you get how nuts this is. And let me tell you that if anyone told my child in a public school that he/she could not speak freely, from the heart? Wow... I would encourage my child to face fines and jail rather than submit to such tyranny. <br /><br />Outrageous. As I hope you will agree.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90042607900266924402011-05-29T23:03:17.467-07:002011-05-29T23:03:17.467-07:00Michelle, I think you have stated your side eloque...Michelle, I think you have stated your side eloquently. Of course I disagree.<br /><br />If I thought that the elimination of religious expression or thought was "progress" I would agree, but of course I think of it as regression, not progression. "Progress" and "secular society" do not go together for me. I like the America the way it has always been: A deeply religious nation (Judeo-Christian), with a non-sectarian government. It's precisely because of this heritage that atheists and those of non-Christian religions have been able to live well and live free.<br /><br />Again, it goes back to our western civilization, and why it matters.<br /><br />I will post on the positive vs. natural law, because I like learning about it, too. I had no idea about this stuff until the past year. I don't remember learning about it in my public school. :)<br /><br />Blessings!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45709510029036627862011-05-29T20:15:58.969-07:002011-05-29T20:15:58.969-07:00I guess this comes down to a difference of opinion...I guess this comes down to a difference of opinion (once again), as I feel like that Chesterton quote is not a great way of looking at things. Sure, keep tradition when it's good - some traditions are undoubtedly for good reason - but I think we shouldn't be afraid to question tradition in the name of progress. And I guess we differ again there, because I think we should aspire to as close to an equal society as we can be, and that even if privilege seems harmless, its elimination will ultimately lead to a better society.<br /><br />With the school prayer thing, though, I don't think the prayer does any good. Sure, it might mean something to the majority, but that majority can pray privately just as effectively. It doesn't hurt <i>anyone</i> to keep the whole thing secular, and it also affirms the diversity of the school. What's more, parents send their kids to public schools with the expectation that they'll get an education that doesn't prefer one religion (or race or gender or socioeconomic status) over another. If an atheist student was attending a Catholic private school, then they'd definitely be being an unreasonable jerk for complaining about a prayer. But there's an expectation that public schools will strive for equality, and working to bring about that equality is, in my opinion, admirable.<br /><br />I appreciate the motherly sentiments. :) Please do post on the difference - I briefly acquainted myself with positive vs. natural law through Wikipedia, but I'm not quite sure yet where my loyalties lie.Michellenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-25006409895120808192011-05-29T18:24:39.158-07:002011-05-29T18:24:39.158-07:00Michelle, one last thought: America is an experime...Michelle, one last thought: America is an experiment. A great experiment, it's true, but a fragile one as well. It is an anomaly in human history. There is not guarantee it will be around in another hundred or two hundred years. <br /><br />My personal opinion is that the turn from natural law to positive law is one nail in the coffin of this great experiment. So yes, to me, it is crucial that young people understand what they have been given.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-25894751834003232712011-05-29T18:21:34.172-07:002011-05-29T18:21:34.172-07:00Michelle, in answer to your question, I believe th...Michelle, in answer to your question, I believe that our traditions are of utmost importance. To tear them down to make a political point, when no one is being harmed, is not honorable, it's just being a jerk. We have a difference of opinion, obviously.<br /><br />You don't disturb me. I feel motherly toward you (since I have a daughter your age). Sorry, I can't help myself there. :) I would say to my children the same thing I say to you. And I love them, that's why it's important to make sure they know their facts, and why they are free and others are not.<br /><br />I hope you will find out more about Western civilization. I hope you will find out more about natural law (on which our nation's laws were based) vs. positive law (which is the way the left makes laws -- a very recent thing). The slaves were emancipated using the principle of natural law, as Lincoln explicitly stated, and the Civil Rights movement also was based on natural law principles.<br /><br />I hope you will look into your own civilization, as it is of the utmost importance to your own future and that of your future children.<br /><br />Here is some info:<br /><br />http://www.nlnrac.org/american/american-civil-rights-movements <br /><br />I hope to post on on the difference between the natural law and positive law soon, maybe in the next couple of weeks.<br /><br />I also have a sincere hope that you will one day dive in to the writings of Chesterton (former atheist, one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th Century). He has this to say about tradition:<br /><br />“It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record… Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”<br /><br />– G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, chapter 4Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-65042110457995528302011-05-29T17:50:18.932-07:002011-05-29T17:50:18.932-07:00Leila, could you answer my questions that I've...Leila, could you answer my questions that I've asked twice now?<br /><i>Anyway, what good does the prayer do? What would it harm the students or school to keep the whole thing secular? Can't they just pray privately?</i><br /><br />I'm sorry I apparently disturb you so much, but I can't see what the Founding Fathers' religion has to do with any of this. Church and state are supposed to be separate, it's in the Constitution - I can't see what's so difficult about this. The Founding Fathers had slaves. Should we have slaves too? Should we halt all progression and confine ourselves to exactly what they said and wanted over 200 years ago? <br /><br />My history education, as you've guessed, is pretty bare-bones as a result of simply not liking history (something I know I should rectify), but from what I understand, the principles matter in that they set up the Constitution we have today. That's what we follow. If they were inspired by Judeo-Christian ideas, fine, that's wonderful. What matters are the laws themselves, though, not the personal beliefs of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution ensures that religion doesn't meddle with the laws, and the laws don't meddle with religion. Right?Michellenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-37477191611581056232011-05-29T17:16:37.657-07:002011-05-29T17:16:37.657-07:00Leila and Michelle, I was going to respond but I d...Leila and Michelle, I was going to respond but I don't have anything to add to what Leila has said Michelle, only to encourage you to listen to her. Maybe you were not educated on our history, I wasn't, but as an adult it is up to you to correct that. It is your obligation. It's for a good reason, not to belittle you at all. History is of utmost importance to understanding the future...if you care. I think you do.Stacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-91118952749479856632011-05-29T17:03:25.181-07:002011-05-29T17:03:25.181-07:00"Who cares if we were or weren't founded ..."Who cares if we were or weren't founded on Judeo-Christian principles?"<br /><br />Michelle, I've got to ask. Do you really mean this?<br /><br />Do you understand the implications of this question?<br /><br />If you don't mind, what were you taught in school about the foundations of our nation, and the significance of Western Civilization?<br /><br />Thanks, I think this may deserve it's own blog post.<br /><br />We have dropped the ball, I fear, in forming our citizens to understand why we exist as a free nation.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-1973094693186808812011-05-29T16:59:13.586-07:002011-05-29T16:59:13.586-07:00Who cares if we were or weren't founded on Jud...<i>Who cares if we were or weren't founded on Judeo-Christian principles? I'm far from an expert on world governments or history, so I can really only speak for the US, but if church and state are to remain separate, the principles upon which the nation was founded shouldn't matter</i><br /><br />Michelle, this is the core of what is wrong with public education. It is unbelievable to me that someone could say this. We have not been educating our children if someone can say this. Bring back classical liberal arts education so that people understand the foundations of Western civilization. We have done a grave disservice to our youth if they can say what you have just said.<br /><br />Also, a black person being prohibited from speaking at a graduation because of his skin color? That is harmful. He is harmed. That is awful.<br /><br />No one is preventing an atheist from doing anything at graduation. <br /><br />As for the "who cares about tradition" sentiment, I refer you back to the first part of what I said in this comment. Michelle, why do you suppose it is <i>this</i> culture which gives you freedom, and not other cultures? Have you been taught that? I don't fault you if you haven't been taught, but do you have any idea why Western civilization is different from other civilizations and cultures?<br /><br />Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-75637581402297064322011-05-29T15:26:41.031-07:002011-05-29T15:26:41.031-07:00You never really addressed my original questions: ...You never really addressed my original questions: <i>Anyway, what good does the prayer do? What would it harm the students or school to keep the whole thing secular? Can't they just pray privately?</i><br /><br />I don't understand why calling someone out on discrimination is such an awful, reprehensible thing. Yes, prayer is harmless, but keeping schools free of religion is even more harmless. So what if it's a tradition? What if it was a tradition to only allow white students to speak at graduation, and the majority was fine with it - would a black person be a killjoy for wanting to keep racial discrimination out of his school? It doesn't cause him any harm not to be able to speak at graduation, so it's fine, right? <br /><br />It's not a matter of offense, and you know that. It's the simple fact that public schools are <i>not religious</i>. They shouldn't be endorsing any religion - that's what religious schools are for. Why is it mean-spirited to want equality in a public school? <br /><br />I think what's enshrined in law is a lot more important than the Founding Fathers' personal beliefs. Church and state are supposed to remain separate, and I'm not sure why it seems so many have trouble understanding that. Who cares if we were or weren't founded on Judeo-Christian principles? I'm far from an expert on world governments or history, so I can really only speak for the US, but if church and state are to remain separate, the principles upon which the nation was founded shouldn't matter - it's the laws that matter. Even if the Founding Fathers were all devout Christians (many weren't), so what? Does that mean we should throw that first amendment out and favor one religion over another?Michellenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-4082322977513711502011-05-29T10:13:15.449-07:002011-05-29T10:13:15.449-07:00Michelle, since you reference George Washington, I...Michelle, since you reference George Washington, I would love for you to comment on this:<br /><br />http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/11/i-guess-george-washington-didnt-get.html<br /><br />Please read it carefully. Do you think GW thought the same as you do about the "wall" of separation?<br /><br />Also, the guy got death threats by idiots (believe me, prolifers and conservatives get death threats all the time. Ask any of the mainstream conservative commenters). I do not, nor does any sane person, condone that. It is not the norm. But he did not get death threats for being an atheist. He did not get scorn for being an atheist, either. He is intensely resented and disliked for filing a lawsuit (as libs are wont to do) because he had to ruin a tradition for something that <i>even you agree</i> caused him no harm. What a jerk. Not a nice person. If people don't like him, he needs to deal with it. He knows full well what he is doing, and he knows that no harm comes to him when a prayer is said at graduation. Ridiculous, and most people understand that it's ridiculous.<br /><br />This idea that atheists are 'persecuted' and 'put upon' just doesn't fly with me. No one has ever forced you to come to mass with me, or forced you to pray. Conservatives have often said that the left is "feelings-driven" and everything seems to be based on your feelings, rather than thought. People get offended. Oh, well. I am offended every day. I don't sue good people because of it. Maybe that is the atheist, leftist way, But it's not my way and I don't believe lawsuits against good people is the American way. I think it's sad what we've come to, and I think you are too young to understand that people don't have to sue each other because of "offense" (get a backbone, man!). We can live together in harmony, atheists and Christians. But when atheists bring lawsuit after lawsuit just to "prove a point", then they are mean-spirited and I will not pretend they are high-minded.<br /><br />By the way, anytime there is a majority and a minority of any thought, there will be people who don't like it. Oh, well. The highest "value" of the left seems to be "equality", and if it has to be forced equality so be it. Unfortunately, forced equality (and care that no one gets their feelings hurt!), leads to loss of freedom. There are societies who force equality. I don't want to live there.<br /><br />And, you didn't really address that point that our Judeo-Christian patrimony was purposely etched on our nations' buildings and monuments <i>by the same people and mindset</i> that wrote the Establishment Clause. Why do you think they didn't understand the very documents they wrote?<br /><br />Also, if we are not a Judeo-Christian nation, then on what principles was our nation founded? Principles and laws don't generally come out of thin air. Help me understand where you think our laws and philosophies came from. There are many nations in the world which were <i>not</i> founded on Judeo-Christian values -- can you name the ones which you prefer?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-56385591836428206212011-05-29T09:37:35.662-07:002011-05-29T09:37:35.662-07:00No, I think in general they do a wonderful job of ...No, I think in general they do a wonderful job of addressing diversity. I was really fortunate to go to an incredibly diverse school (there were some courses where as a Caucasian female I was in the minority, which you really don't get very often), and I don't think anyone felt marginalized because of their race or faith. I can only hope that when/if I have kids of my own that they'll be lucky enough to go to school in as diverse and accepting of an environment as I did.<br /><br />But the schools that allow prayers aren't doing a good job of addressing diversity. They aren't acknowledging that while Christians may be the majority, there are people who will be marginalized and discriminated against when Christian prayers are sanctioned or encouraged by the school. It's not a matter of being a nitpicky killjoy - Damon Fowler <i>got death threats</i>. How is <i>that</i> accepting of diversity? No one is preventing Christians from praying privately, either. What they are trying to prevent is the endorsement of a religion in a secular realm.<br /><br />Just because "In God We Trust" is our motto, just because Congress starts out with prayers doesn't mean that's right or good for a nation that has explicitly stated in its Constitution that Congress isn't supposed to make any laws establishing a favored religion. This, from the Treaty of Tripoli, which was drafted under George Washington and signed by John Adams:<br /><i>...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion</i><br />How can you overlook the clear intention to keep religion and government separate?<br /><br />(Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "mistake" - yes, I think it shouldn't have been done. We aren't a Christian nation, and even though a majority of our leaders are and have been Christian, it doesn't mean that should be imposed on a diverse, secular country.)Michellenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-49879993852868284402011-05-29T08:02:45.954-07:002011-05-29T08:02:45.954-07:00As to the "In God We Trust" story, there...As to the "In God We Trust" story, there is much more to it (and it goes way back) than what you say. From Wikipedia:<br /><br /><i>In God We Trust was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956. It is also the motto of the U.S. state of Florida. The phrase has appeared on U.S. coins since 1864 and on paper currency since 1957.[1] Its Spanish equivalent, En Dios Confiamos, is the motto of the Central American nation of Nicaragua.[2]<br />The origin of the phrase is no doubt derived from the Bible, as a plethora of psalms contain this phrase or derivations of it (Psalms 20, Psalms 56, & Psalms 62, etc.) The phrase has been incorporated in many hymns and patriotic songs. The final stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner, written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key (and later adopted as the U.S. national anthem), contains an early reference to a variation of the phrase: "...And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust'."[3]<br />It was first used as a motto on coinage on the 1864 two-cent coin, followed in 1866 by the 5 cent nickel (1866–1883), quarter dollar, half dollar, silver dollar and gold dollars.[1][4] An 1865 law allowed the motto to be used on coins.[5] The use of the motto was permitted, but not required, by an 1873 law. While several laws come into play, the act of May 18, 1908,[6] is most often cited as requiring the motto (even though the cent and nickel were excluded from that law, and the nickel did not have the motto added until 1938). Since 1938, all coins have borne the motto.<br />On July 11, 1954, just one year after the phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance,[7] the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 84-140, which required the motto on all coins and currency. The law was approved by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.[1]<br />In 1956 the phrase was legally adopted as the United States' national motto by a law passed by the 84th United States Congress.(Public Law 84-851)",[8] and the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, now states: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."</i><br /><br />(sorry for no paragraph breaks)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-88861149725293087952011-05-29T07:59:50.391-07:002011-05-29T07:59:50.391-07:00Michelle, you don't think public schools ackno...Michelle, you don't think public schools acknowledge diversity? I sure know that they do. I think the lawsuits are just killjoys who have no sense of community and tolerance. It's ridiculous and mean-spirited. No one is preventing his atheism (which <i>is</i> a faith… atheism is so rare in the human condition that I believe strongly it's something contrary to our nature. It's quite a leap of faith to deny God).<br /><br />Here is a school official at another school being sued who says it well:<br /><br /><i>A school spokesman says the group is just trying to create a political debate.<br /><br />"It is sad that someone would choose the commencement exercises of the 50th anniversary of our school district as a forum for stirring political debate that threatens to needlessly cast a shadow of controversy over the pinnacle event of the class of 2011," school board president Roland Ruiz told the paper.</i><br /><br />That story here:<br /><br /> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/28/lawsuit-filed-texas-school-district-stop-prayer-graduation/#ixzz1Nkl7vPi2<br /><br />As for the "mistake" of the statements etched in the marble: I used the term because that's almost what atheists seem to imply. That somehow everyone understood as atheists do, that there was to be a strict and impenetrable "wall" cutting off all flow of religion to and from gov't. But that is not born out by the evidence! America's religious patrimony is <i>literally</i> etched in stone, on pretty much every monument and building in our capital. How can you just overlook that (and the prayers starting out the sessions of Congress) when you try to say what the Founders intended?<br /><br />Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-21372029641533832392011-05-28T09:00:19.539-07:002011-05-28T09:00:19.539-07:00No, he's not being harmed, and you're righ...No, he's not being harmed, and you're right, it is to make a point. He's at a secular school, which is not supposed to endorse any religion - like I said, if we let little things like this slide by, it'll be a lot harder to keep public schools secular when it comes to the actual education. Anyway, what good does the prayer do? What would it harm the students or school to keep the whole thing secular? Can't they just pray privately?<br /><br /><i>This student seems to be trying to "make a point" rather than get along in a "diverse" society (I thought liberals loved diversity?). </i><br />I think the point he's trying to make is that he <i>does</i> live in a diverse society - those prayers might appeal to a majority, but there are people of other beliefs, and that's what he's trying to show. It seems to me that it's the school that has no interest in getting along with (or even acknowledging) diversity - the poor kid even got death threats for speaking out.<br /><br />Do you think, then, that that bit of the Constitution implies that everyone must have a religion? I don't want to haggle over one word, but "freedom of religion" can also suggest that you are free of religion (and I'd argue that atheism isn't a faith at all). Of course, no one wants a religion-free bubble around them - that's not the point at all. It's just that religious belief should not be assumed or endorsed. <br /><br /><i>Do you think someone mistakenly etched "In God We Trust" on the marble wall of the House Rotunda? If so, how did that happen, and should it be blasted off the walls?</i><br />Not sure why you're asking this, but of course it wasn't a mistake, and if it's part of the architecture, removing it seems excessive. (Should the nation's motto be "In God We Trust"? I don't think so. Incidentally, "In God We Trust" only became our official motto in 1956 as a result of McCarthyism.) Words on a wall are passively sitting there, though, while prayers at school and in the House and Senate are actively endorsing a particular religion.Michellehttp://existenceandessence.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-19519185599009434132011-05-27T23:47:41.678-07:002011-05-27T23:47:41.678-07:00http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=...http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1354592<br /><br />Here is a new news story about the ACLU and prayer at graduations. I agree that this whole thing is outrageous, and not at all what the Founders intended (obviously).Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.com