Re: Boy in a Santa suit asked to quit dance
From: Geoff (gebobs_at_yahoo.nospam.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:40:34 GMT
"Dino" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> "Geoff" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> "mr firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:42:54 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Fred
>>> Muscara) wrote:
>>>>"It was a holiday party," said Muscara. "It was not a Christmas party.
>>>>is a separation of church and state.
>>> Why does a principal of a school not know that there is NO mention of
>>> "separation of church of state" anywhere in the Constitution?
>> Yes it's inane.
>> But if you don't think the establishment clause wasn't intended
>> as a barrier between church and state, you're an idiot.
> Your the idiot it means what it says. Congress cannot establish a state
> religion. AND prohibit the free practice of religion.
OK...first off...I apologize for calling Mr. Dude an idiot. Such name
only incites emotional responses.
Mr. Dude said "Why does a principal of a school not know that there
is NO mention of "separation of church of state" anywhere in the
I know, the statement "separation of church and state" do not appear
overtly in the Constitution. But neither does the right to privacy or
the right to a fair trial. But both are guaranteed by interpretation of
specific amendments to the constitution. The Constitution was written
with an economy of words. Subsequent interpretation is based upon
ancillary documents as well as the strict wording.
The Establishment clause says basically that the state cannot foster ("make
no law respecting an establishment of religion") or hinder religious
("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
Many people misread the first statement as "make no law respecting an
establishment of A religion". The absence of the "a" is significant. With
"a", some mistake it for saying that the state just cannot favor one
but can favor many religions. This is wrong. The Constitution (unclearly)
says that the state cannot favor religion. Period.
> Why can Islam be practiced in school and is taught in school but the Bible
> cannot be mentioned. There is no barrier. Learn to read. By all these
> idiots on the courts and running schools we are slowly losing our right
> which one will be next?
Any PUBLIC school that teaches Islam, Zoroastrianism, or any religion is
violating the Establishment clause. If you know of ANY school that does
I encourage you to contact your local congressman.
If your child attends a public school, he/she may study religion to his
content the better part of the day and all of the weekend.
> BTW this country was settled by people looking for the freedom to practice
> their religion. Now it is becoming a country of bigots that believe the
> "establishment clause as you call it" is becoming a country where religion
> will only be allowed in the closet. We are headed the way the Soviet Union
> was, intolerant of religion.
The Establishment clause DOES NOT mean religious intolerance. It quite
simply means that the government must remain NEUTRAL with regard to
religion. Far from handicapping religion, it leaves religious authority
unfettered by government.
Statements like "we are headed the way of the Soviet Union" are panicky
hyperbole. No country in history has EVER had the religious freedom
that the US has. Churches are on every corner. Televangelists are on 24/7.
Every citizen has the right to practice any religion and donate as much of
their hard earned cash they want to their church.
> BTW Santa Clause is not religious
Well, strictly speaking, Santa Claus IS a religious figure. I have NO idea
where you got the idea that he isn't. That being said, a child dressing as
a religious figure does not IMHO violate the Establishment clause.