http://www.surveymagnet.com/2010/07/does-separation-of-church-and-state-really-exists/

Come join the discussion

The State isn’t promoting any particular religion over another. The town said that it’s open to whomever would like to say a prayer.

True conservatives understand that distinction and recognize the threat to freedom when the power of the State is used to promote religion, especially particular religion.

First off, lecturing us on what a “true conservative” should believe, is pretty darn arrogant of you! Are you the god of conservatism? I’m guessing you are liberal and probably an activist of some sort. That’s OK, because I’m a conservative and an activist as well. We conservatives look forward to engaging liberals in these discussions.

The first part of the First Amendment states, ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This guarantees our right to practice our religion. That freedom is universal, whether it be in our homes, the town square or the town hall. Nowhere in the founding documents of our Country, be it the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist papers, is there anything stated about a “Wall of Separation between Church and State”! The government has no Constitutional right to force a Baptist minister to pray in a government prescribed way! That would violate the minister’s First Amendment rights.

Here, it is the arrogant town officials who are utilizing the power of the state to impose “correctness” – political AND religious correctness.

The Town of Greece has a prayer before the opening of the Town Board meeting, just as the Congress has a Chaplain that leads a prayer before the start of sessions. This tradition goes back to the First Continental Congress back in September of 1774. It’s just a prayer and nobody is establishing an official religion, just exercising their First Amendment rights.

Actually, Jesus would probably side with AU on this one.

I’m sure he’d side with Rev. Brado’s freedom and Constitutional right to pray to Him. Why would Jesus side with people that hated Him and were preventing prayer to Him? I believe Jesus would engage His haters though and attempt to get through to them and soften their hearts.

And so will the Supreme Court if it comes to that. The legal precedent is pretty clear here. When the machinery of the state is used to sponsor “official” prayer, the result is inherently coercive and is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

I’m pretty sure it will go to the Supreme Court and I believe there’s a good chance that they will find that it’s coersive requiring the State to mandate “government approved” prayer because that would be a violation of the establishment clause.

Obviously.

“The people bringing this lawsuit, AU, have a clear agenda of trying to banish God and religious expression from the town square.”

No, that is not their agenda. Their goal is the same as James Madison’s – to keep religion and government apart – and for good reason. But your reference to the “town square” raises a key point. There is pretty big difference between the town SQUARE and the town HALL. The former is the traditional public forum. The latter is the very seat of secular power and coercion. That is what the case is about.

True conservatives understand that distinction and recognize the threat to freedom when the power of the State is used to promote religion, especially particular religion.

“To force a Baptist minister, Rev. Bob Brado, to pray government approved prayer is a violation of the First Amendment and is the establishment of a state religion, the religion of “political correctness”.

Nobody is asking Rev. Brado to do anything of the kind, much less “forcing” him. Here, it is the arrogant town officials who are utilizing the power of the state to impose “correctness” – political AND religious correctness.

“AU is going to lose this one and many more! Jesus wins in the end!”

Indeed. Actually, Jesus would probably side with AU on this one.

And so will the Supreme Court if it comes to that. The legal precedent is pretty clear here. When the machinery of the state is used to sponsor “official” prayer, the result is inherently coercive and is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

It’s probably true that any such government sponsored prayer would run afoul of the Establishment clause – though court cases go either way. But when it’s a clearly sectarian prayer, as it seems to be in this case here, it really is a no-brainer.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

The folks bringing this lawsuit are 100% correct.

I disagree with you. The people bringing this lawsuit, AU, have a clear agenda of trying to banish God and religious expression from the town square.

To force a Baptist minister, Rev. Bob Brado, to pray government approved prayer is a violation of the First Amendment and is the establishment of a state religion, the religion of “political correctness”.

AU is going to lose this one and many more! Jesus wins in the end!

The folks bringing this lawsuit are 100% correct.

The lawsuit is not an attack on faith. Hardly. It is, if anything, exactly the opposite. It is a defense of freedom of conscience in America.

Obviously public officials, like all citizens, have the right to pray. That is not the issue. The issue is the coercive power of the state and the freedom of conscience of citizens. When public officials use the power of the state and their position in government as a means to promote their own sectarian faith (i.e., “official” prayers) they are not only running afoul of the Constitution and arrogantly violating the freedom of conscience of those who hold different beliefs….they are actually discrediting faith itself.

James Madison said it best: “Religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

Amen, Mr. Madison.

I won’t name the person because this is just an example, but check this out:

I do not believe in organized religion. It has been the bane of existence throughout history. Organized Religion divides people and is the source of war and hatred and “us versus them”.

A moment of silence is just another way for people to pray.

Wow, he even wants to ban a moment of silence because of his hatred of prayer and those of us who do pray.

I take exception to that sort of thing and I will stand and fight to protect our Constitutional rights. I pray on a daily basis. I pray for phantomlord and his dad, I pray for leavingroch and her family, I pray for lots of people. Lately, I’ve had people in church asking me to pray for their relatives and friends who are ill or going through a bad time. I’ll not allow my right to prayer to be diminished or taken away!

The concept of conservatism revolves around the idea that you know what is best for yourself and the government should have a limited role in your life, mostly to ensure that your rights aren’t trampled and that you aren’t trampling someone else’s rights. It’s all about freedom and responsibility.

Other groups seek to impose their will on others. You’re free so long as you agree with them. They see the government as a tool to bludgeon others into submission with rather than as a check against harmful irresponsibility. Of course, these people are often the first to scream “totalitarianism” whenever they don’t get their way… but I guess the irony is lost on them.

Careful PL you might start sounding like a conspiracy lover… I agree completely. It is the attitude of “that doesn’t effect me” that will slowly erode all of our rights. We must stand for our rights, big and small whether it effects us or not. Or soon we will have no rights.

My husband and I believe even if you don’t want to own a gun you should have your permit. Someday they may make it impossible to get it, if we exercise our right now, it will be harder to take it away later. Same with this. If we stand up, the next time it will be harder.

I don’t understand someone who wants to trample on my rights claiming it is their right.. I don’t get it.