Separation between church and state

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by TurismoDreamin

121st Street between Memorial and Sheridan.

Bixby North Elementary School

A church is being built on what is literally school grounds (not across the street). The school is arranged in an upside down L-shaped configuration to 121st Street and the church is in the middle of this L-shape (google maps is out of date). On top of this, it is a youth church, so their target group is obvious. Is this unconstitutional that they are building a church within that kind of proximity to the school? Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school? Why doesn't separation between church and state also include land and proximity?

That church has been holding services at the school on Sundays for several years.  Nice church, good people.

[Gaspar]

Boy, everytime someone opens up this can of worms I have to go back and simply read the 1st amendment.

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.

Now I still haven't found a place where it says "keep churches away from us!"

A church built next to a school does not involve the government making a law establishing that church as the official church of Bixby schools.  

Great communities usually have strong relationships between schools, churches and other places of assembly, learning, philosophy, and  introspection.

I know that the rabid libs keep trying to change the interpretation of the 1st amendment, but unless they actually rewrite it, it says what it says.

Sorry.

[TeeDub]

If you are going to really complain, why don't you take it up with the schools that are actually leasing space to churches?

There are a few Union schools that allow churches to meet there on Sundays.

[cannon_fodder]

Gaspar:

quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That means the United States is obligated to prevent laws or policies from establishing a state religion.  

quote:or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That means the government shall not prohibit the practice and/or belief in a religion.


Very clearly it is a two way street.  Many "rabid" conservatives would love to have you believe Christianity is the State religion, we were founded as a Christian nation, that our founders (many of whom were rabidly anti organized religion) were all fundamentalist Christians, that Christian doctrine should be taught in school (particular as science) and that the 1st Amendment is only a limitation from the government hindering religion, not a limitation on the government encouraging religion.  If one side is pushing harder on the Establishment of Religion clause, it would have to be the conservative side.

By the very nature of the beast, many Christians are supposed to push their religion on other people.  There is far less push against religion.  It simply isn't as profitable [] (you'll note there is not one TV network devoted to the disestablishment of religion, no temples or other massive complexes built to convince people to abandon religion , very few nonprofits espousing the benefits of more freedom and disposal income, etc.).  The paranoia of the Right about "anti religious" sentiment is disproportional to any actual threat.  

Not that it has any bearing in this instance.  As part of the tit for tat Churches can build wherever they please so that members can "exercise thereof."  It annoys me a little bit because I assume they will put up billboards or other signage in an attempt to convince people of their views.  But that is their right and if I wanted I could buy a billboard or land nearby and express my views (though I wouldn't be a non-profit, but that's a whole other discussion).
- - -


Interesting aside:

Our fear of the secular state largely comes from watching Europe abandon organized religion.  That movement is often attributed to the post WWII period - and studies have shown that people who lived through the destruction essentially lost their appetite for religion (unsatisfactory answers to the "how could God allow..." questions coupled with other priorities).  The United States, which was the most notable victor of the war and whose population was largely spared having to see the destruction, actually became more religious.

Not sure what that says, but I found that tidbit interesting.

[BierGarten]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


There are a few Union schools that allow churches to meet there on Sundays.

What is the point of your statement?  Are you suggesting they don't "allow" them to meet there?  If that is what you are suggesting, implementing your suggestion will do nothing other than produce income for some local first amendment attorneys.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Gaspar:

quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That means the United States is obligated to prevent laws or policies from establishing a state religion.  

quote:or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That means the government shall not prohibit the practice and/or belief in a religion.


Very clearly it is a two way street.  Many "rabid" conservatives would love to have you believe Christianity is the State religion, we were founded as a Christian nation, that our founders (many of whom were rabidly anti organized religion) were all fundamentalist Christians, that Christian doctrine should be taught in school (particular as science) and that the 1st Amendment is only a limitation from the government hindering religion, not a limitation on the government encouraging religion.  If one side is pushing harder on the Establishment of Religion clause, it would have to be the conservative side.

By the very nature of the beast, many Christians are supposed to push their religion on other people.  There is far less push against religion.  It simply isn't as profitable [] (you'll note there is not one TV network devoted to the disestablishment of religion, no temples or other massive complexes built to convince people to abandon religion , very few nonprofits espousing the benefits of more freedom and disposal income, etc.).  The paranoia of the Right about "anti religious" sentiment is disproportional to any actual threat.  

Not that it has any bearing in this instance.  As part of the tit for tat Churches can build wherever they please so that members can "exercise thereof."  It annoys me a little bit because I assume they will put up billboards or other signage in an attempt to convince people of their views.  But that is their right and if I wanted I could buy a billboard or land nearby and express my views (though I wouldn't be a non-profit, but that's a whole other discussion).
- - -


Interesting aside:

Our fear of the secular state largely comes from watching Europe abandon organized religion.  That movement is often attributed to the post WWII period - and studies have shown that people who lived through the destruction essentially lost their appetite for religion (unsatisfactory answers to the "how could God allow..." questions coupled with other priorities).  The United States, which was the most notable victor of the war and whose population was largely spared having to see the destruction, actually became more religious.

Not sure what that says, but I found that tidbit interesting.

I agree with what you are saying, I'm just curious as to how people could "propose" a law to restricts the free exercise of religion.  It seems that we continue on a path of not separation, but rather restriction.

If you restrict the construction of a church to 1,000 ft away from a public building, aren't you just as guilty of violating the first amendment as you would be for allowing a church to operate within a public building?

The latter is obviously a violation, but so is the former.

Is the view of a church from the classroom or courtroom a violation because it may serve to encourage religious thought?

Urban environments are strewn with churches next to schools and courthouses.  Why would anyone get worked up because a church is being built 140ft away from a public school.  

Insane!

[cannon_fodder]

I understand your position and largely agree, just making sure I was clear.

[Fatstrat]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Gaspar:

quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That means the United States is obligated to prevent laws or policies from establishing a state religion.  

quote:or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That means the government shall not prohibit the practice and/or belief in a religion.


Very clearly it is a two way street.  Many "rabid" conservatives would love to have you believe Christianity is the State religion, we were founded as a Christian nation, that our founders (many of whom were rabidly anti organized religion) were all fundamentalist Christians, that Christian doctrine should be taught in school (particular as science) and that the 1st Amendment is only a limitation from the government hindering religion, not a limitation on the government encouraging religion.  If one side is pushing harder on the Establishment of Religion clause, it would have to be the conservative side.

By the very nature of the beast, many Christians are supposed to push their religion on other people.  There is far less push against religion.  It simply isn't as profitable [] (you'll note there is not one TV network devoted to the disestablishment of religion, no temples or other massive complexes built to convince people to abandon religion , very few nonprofits espousing the benefits of more freedom and disposal income, etc.).  The paranoia of the Right about "anti religious" sentiment is disproportional to any actual threat.  

Not that it has any bearing in this instance.  As part of the tit for tat Churches can build wherever they please so that members can "exercise thereof."  It annoys me a little bit because I assume they will put up billboards or other signage in an attempt to convince people of their views.  But that is their right and if I wanted I could buy a billboard or land nearby and express my views (though I wouldn't be a non-profit, but that's a whole other discussion).
- - -


Interesting aside:

Our fear of the secular state largely comes from watching Europe abandon organized religion.  That movement is often attributed to the post WWII period - and studies have shown that people who lived through the destruction essentially lost their appetite for religion (unsatisfactory answers to the "how could God allow..." questions coupled with other priorities).  The United States, which was the most notable victor of the war and whose population was largely spared having to see the destruction, actually became more religious.

Not sure what that says, but I found that tidbit interesting.

Read George Washington's Farewell Address and then tell me our founding fathers didn't intend this to be a Christian nation
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

[guido911]

Fatstrat, you have stepped in it now, sick em CF. Oh, and welcome to Tulsa Now.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Gaspar:

quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That means the United States is obligated to prevent laws or policies from establishing a state religion.  

quote:or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That means the government shall not prohibit the practice and/or belief in a religion.


Very clearly it is a two way street.  Many "rabid" conservatives would love to have you believe Christianity is the State religion, we were founded as a Christian nation, that our founders (many of whom were rabidly anti organized religion) were all fundamentalist Christians, that Christian doctrine should be taught in school (particular as science) and that the 1st Amendment is only a limitation from the government hindering religion, not a limitation on the government encouraging religion.  If one side is pushing harder on the Establishment of Religion clause, it would have to be the conservative side.

By the very nature of the beast, many Christians are supposed to push their religion on other people.  There is far less push against religion.  It simply isn't as profitable [] (you'll note there is not one TV network devoted to the disestablishment of religion, no temples or other massive complexes built to convince people to abandon religion , very few nonprofits espousing the benefits of more freedom and disposal income, etc.).  The paranoia of the Right about "anti religious" sentiment is disproportional to any actual threat.  

Not that it has any bearing in this instance.  As part of the tit for tat Churches can build wherever they please so that members can "exercise thereof."  It annoys me a little bit because I assume they will put up billboards or other signage in an attempt to convince people of their views.  But that is their right and if I wanted I could buy a billboard or land nearby and express my views (though I wouldn't be a non-profit, but that's a whole other discussion).
- - -


Interesting aside:

Our fear of the secular state largely comes from watching Europe abandon organized religion.  That movement is often attributed to the post WWII period - and studies have shown that people who lived through the destruction essentially lost their appetite for religion (unsatisfactory answers to the "how could God allow..." questions coupled with other priorities).  The United States, which was the most notable victor of the war and whose population was largely spared having to see the destruction, actually became more religious.

Not sure what that says, but I found that tidbit interesting.

I agree with what you are saying, I'm just curious as to how people could "propose" a law to restricts the free exercise of religion.  It seems that we continue on a path of not separation, but rather restriction.

If you restrict the construction of a church to 1,000 ft away from a public building, aren't you just as guilty of violating the first amendment as you would be for allowing a church to operate within a public building?

The latter is obviously a violation, but so is the former.

Is the view of a church from the classroom or courtroom a violation because it may serve to encourage religious thought?

Urban environments are strewn with churches next to schools and courthouses.  Why would anyone get worked up because a church is being built 140ft away from a public school.  

Insane!

i dont think thats the point.  I think there needs to be a closer look at how the church got the land in question.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat


Read George Washington's Farewell Address and then tell me our founding fathers didn't intend this to be a Christian nation
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

I like any speech which includes the phrase "unrestrained intercourse."

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

Read George Washington's Farewell Address and then tell me our founding fathers didn't intend this to be a Christian nation
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Funny, the 'proof' that he is a good Christian man wanting a Christian nation makes no mention of Jesus.  For that matter, it never uses the word God.  He certainly talks about how a religious belief is important to his morality,

The next paragraph spends a greater amount of time talking about the importance of allowing the government to spend on "public credit." Which is followed by how we should get along with every other country but wars "might be occasioned" (actually the next 7 paragrphs talk about foreign affairs).  One would think a Christian Nation might use the name of God, or at least reference CHRIST in the address... or perhaps afford more than 5 sentences to the notion of vague morality.  (keep in mind you cited to the actual version, not the "updated version" that ends with a salutation to Jesus).

The paragraph you allude to could be written by any religious person.  A Muslim, Jew, Zorrostrian, Scientologist, Mormon - it doesn't even specify a single God so it could be Hindu, Seikh, Aboriginal.  Nor does it even specify a creator so it could be Shintoist, Buddhist,  Wikkan or a host of pagan religions.  6 references to Religion or Morality, two dozen to reason, knowledge, and understanding.

Please go get a biography of the man, read it, and then try to tell me he was a devote Christian who wanted to found a Christian nation.  Look up most of the "big name" founders and make the same claim.  Washington was a standout religious man compared to most of them, and he had plenty of public things to say that are against religion:

quote:Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.
- From his Farewell Address

quote:There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.
   George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790

quote:Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated.

quote:Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than thsoe which spring from any other cause. [George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792]

quote:...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. [George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, from The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, Isacc Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore W.W. Norton and Company 101-102]

quote:I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. [George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]

quote:The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.

quote:To give opinions unsupported by reasons would be dogmatical. [George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]

He favored reason over dogma (by definition not religious).

He didn't believe in life after death.

Never refers to Jesus in a public speech.

Rarely attended church.

Refused to take communion (his wife did, he left early when he went and sent the carriage back for her).

In fact, very little, if any evidence would suggest Washington was the pious religious man you wish us to believe.  He had religious beliefs certainly, but there is no evidence that he was attempting to found, ever wanted, or would have maintained a Christian Nation.

Just for fun, go look up the religious beliefs of Ben Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Ethan Allen or Thomas Paine.  Then come back and argue that they tried to setup a Christian Nation.  Or change your story to exclude them from have a significant role in the founding of our nation.  Pick one.  To make your argument you'll have to redraft history some how or other.  Think we can get religion in history class as well as science class?

quote:Guido wrote sick em CF.

And how.
- - -

and indeed, Welcome to Tulsa Now!

[JCnOwasso]

Oh sweet jesus (no pun intended)...

I have had this discussion with a friend of mine on several occasions.  There is a literal meaning of SoCaS and one made up from the bleeding heart political correctedness crowd.  

What harm will come out of a church being in the general area?  Will the people of different religions get a little God on them?  Will they see a cross and ask their parents about it?  Now if there is a bell, I would agree with you, those things are damn annoying.  And it will interrupt the school day.

As for the OG Gee Dub and our wonderful founding fathers... this country was founded upon religous freedom... to remove themselves from the reign of the Church of England.  What you now say is that our country was intended on being strictly Christian and everything else is null.  Shoot, why don't we just start burning witches and having religous crusades (err... okay, so we might be having a slight crusade, but it was for WMD).

Again... A church is not a bar, or a Jail or a house of ill repute.  Now if it was a Church of Scientology... I would be right there with you.  Those people are nuts.

[RecycleMichael]

Portland Maine has both a Church Street and a State Steet.

The separation between Church and State is 10 blocks.

[Michael71]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

While I'd rather not have to vote at a church, I don't have a big problem with it. There aren't a lot of other options, really..at least not that wouldn't make voting more inconvenient.

A church is just a building.