| Q. | The Teachers' Union funds the "Americans United for Separation of Church and State"...this helps kids learn? | Related Search:
Politics | | | [Link] 
Or, how about these that also get hundreds of thousands of YOUR money...money that would otherwise show up in YOUR PAYCHECK...
Center for Community Change
Center for Policy Alternatives
ACORN
American Rights at Work
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center
Business and Professional Women/USA
Campaign for America’s Future
Center for Community Change
Center for Policy Alternatives
Economic Policy Institute
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
GLAAD
Human Rights Campaign
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Latina Initiative
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
League of Rural Voters
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
NAACP
National Association for Bilingual Education
National Council of La Raza
Yes...the teachers' union (NEA) supports the above-mentioned organizations with millions of dollars....why didn't they save or invest those funds so they could bail out their buddies in the UAW?
I am not bailing out ANY unions no matter what.
In 1995, they gave: "FY95: $162 million [Democrat Majority in Congress]"
Funds for Bill Clinton's campaign...despite the fact that 30% of teachers are Republican and others are Independent, Libertarian or Green.
[Link]
Separating Church and State is already the law...do they have to give millions to this pathetic organization? Union dues???
Sure...unions can do what they want....just don't ever come to taxpayers for a bailout if you are squandering money like this.
I may not know what each of these orgs do ...give me a few days...some of their websites lead to dead links...
A few more that they spent their gross revenues of $400,000,000.00 on
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Women’s Law Center
People for the American Way
RainbowPUSH Coalition
Sierra Club
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
The Citizenship Project
The National Coalition on Black Civic Participation
The Task Force Foundation
USAction
Women’s Campaign Forum
Women’s Voices, Women Vote
Of course I want separation of church and schools...that is already the law...but don't you want separation of the Democratic Party and Schools?
| | A. | The NEA couldn't give a rat's @ss about your kids' educations. If they did, they'd have more stringent rules for becoming a teacher and joining the union in the first place... such as, teachers must know how to read and do simple addition. You know as well as I do some teachers slip through the cracks on the most basic of functions, and they're TEACHING OUR CHILDREN.
Unions are there for the best interests of the union. Nothing more, nothing less. | | | |
| Q. | Why does Romney think we're in danger of taking separation between church and state too far? | Related Search:
Politics | | | Church and State separation too far, too secular? Here's another way of looking at it:
Mitt Romney's speech on the role of religion in American politics reflects an inaccurate understanding of the constitutional relationship between church and state, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“I was disappointed in Romney’s statement,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “The founders of our Constitution meant for religion and government to be completely separate. Romney is wrong when he says we are in danger of taking separation too far or at risk of establishing a religion of secularism. “I was particularly outraged that Romney thinks that the Constitution is somehow based on faith and that judges should rule accordingly, “ Lynn said. “That’s a gross misunderstanding of the framework of our constitutional system.
Guess Romney doesn't want to think about the millions of Amercians who don't follow a religion...and vote?
I'm a heretic? Thanks, I love that, I think that is wonderful, even though I'm sure you didn't mean it to be a compliment!
Heresy: "Heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative".
| | A. | Here's Romney's statement:
He said that, "no religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion," but he added that, "the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
I have to agree with Rev. Barry Lynn--he doesn't seem to know what it says in the Constitution. Many of the people we think of as the Founders were mostly indifferent to religion, and most of them believed it was a private affair with no place in public life. The Constitution was based on enlightenment ideas; that the Ten Commandments contained some of the same ideas they ascribed to the idea that all civilizations require some of the same laws.
(By the way, Curtis, the Nazis did have a religion; it was based on Luther, conservative Catholicism, and Nordic mythology. It was a state religion. Marxian communism doesn't prohibit religion, although it does say that it's unnecessary. Read a book.)
Even the commandments, by the way, are not divided up or translated the same by all sects. In the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, for instance, the 8th commandment reads, "To be honest and fair in our dealings; to seek justice, freedom, and the necessities of life for all people; and to use our talents and possessions as ones who must answer for them to God." So, whose commandments are you going to post?
I'm also annoyed that Romney has dragged out that old nonsense about the "religion of secularism." Secularism isn't a religion; this would be the point of it!
Anyway, to answer the question, I think this was a rather clumsy attempt on Romney's part to overcome the Mormon issue he's been facing. I am even less likely to vote for him now that he's declared himself an Evangelical. | | | |
| Q. | If Americans should abolish the separation of Church & State, what should our national religion be? | Related Search:
Religion & Spirituality | | | Would it be best for the Catholic Church to dominate our government, and Catholic prayers to be read alloud in Congress and in all the elementary schools?
Or in line with the story of Puritan New England and the PIlgrims & the Mayflower pact and all, would it be better for conservative Baptists to dominate the government and determine the public prayers to be read in the schools, since today's Baptists follow Calvinist beliefs rather similar to some of the beliefs of the early Pilgrims & Puritans?
What about putting the Unitarians in charge of the nation's religious affairs, since a portion of the Calvinist Church of Puritan New England eventually evolved into modern Unitarianism?
What about putting the Lutherans in charge of our national religious life? Or the Mormons, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or some of the non-Christian religions?
What about the Pentacostalists, since they claim to be directly inspired by the Holy Spirit?
I know, of course, that some people in R&S oppose any end to the barriers separating church and state in America.
But if you are one of those Christians in R&S who would like to see Church & State united under an American theocracy, what do you think that theocracy should look like?
Whose theology should guide its laws, and who should compose its public prayers?
| | A. | Your point is well taken that state religions to the exclusion of all others are problematic. The better approach is a spirituality that may be found within and outside of any religion.
Our founding fathers may have been wise enough to separate "church" and "state." We don't speak of "church" and "capital building." The "state" is an organization without hardware. "Church" however implies a physical, material foundation for an institution. The "church" is a body that deals with governance in any event. To make it also the government doubles its power. There is no sense that my spirituality should govern yours. It is only my thoughts and actions that are given perspective in spirituality.
The founding fathers never wanted or expected the guidance that each might find in their hearts to be left at home when dealing with the "state" or our fellow man. Our founding fathers were moral and spiritual people, but more often than not it was their religions left at home when it came to matters of state. The supremacy of any one religion would no doubt lead to tyranny for all the rest, but a spiritual person can more easily gather even the atheist and agnostic in their heart. | | | |
| Q. | Can anyohe show me proof that the United States Constitution promotes the separation of church and state? | Related Search:
Religion & Spirituality | | | In 1802 Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association in which he described the First Amendment as erecting a "wall of separation between church and state." That phrase, largely forgotten for nearly 150 years, was reintroduced to our lexicon in 1947 by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in his opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, a case holding that state funded transportation of all students to and from their schools, including parochial schools, was constitutional. The wall metaphor has since been accepted by most Americans, and many jurists, as the authoritative description of the interaction between religion and civil government countenanced by the First Amendment.
No the first amendments "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." Does not say that church and state should be separated, only that the state shall not mandate a religion, not that it should put limits upon one such as is being done with christianity.
Thank you ISD in the water for showing your true ignorance (or using your words your stupidity) by doing nothing more than trying to insult me. Such lack of respect for anyone is the true sign of unfathomable ignorance. Since it shows you have no respect for your fellow man, instead you feel so low about yourself you must cut down others to help you feel superior.
| | A. | This much is true. The first amendment promises freedom of press, speech, assembly, and religion...but not freedom FROM religion. | | | |
| Q. | Do Americans still revere the separation of church and state? | Related Search:
Politics | | | As well as being the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, third president of the United States of America Thomas Jefferson was the main of the Amendment in the Constitution separating church and state. His view was simple, enlightened and pithy:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
When John Kennedy's Catholicism was raised prior to the 1960 election, he felt it necessary to address the issue to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association:
"I believe in an America...where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
Has this tenet of a robust democracy eroded in recent years re: Obama etc?
I must acknowledge one thing: I omitted the word 'architect' in the sentence "Thomas Jefferson was the main..." You may insert 'architect' here. I apologise for this omission. However, VastRC, you made the assumption that I was going to say 'author'. Yes, Madison wrote it. But he would not have without Jefferson as the catalyst.
You have also drawn the sloppy conclusion that just because the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear that the concept does not exist. When it comes to education, I'd suggest you look a little further afield than you have up to this this point.
re:Obama.
When Kennedy addressed the GHMA he said: "For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been -- and may someday be again - a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. "
Obama's a UCC parishioner who's being 'tarred' a Muslim. I bring him up as he's a salient example of how the injection of religion into matters state & gov't reinforce the idea that religious liberty no longer seems to exist.
dem-dogs, it generally pays to investigate a previous rebuttal of an opinion. The words 'separation of church & state' don't appear in the US Constitution. Agreed. No argument there. Nor was there any 18 hours ago when I agreed, before you 'answered'. You can't see the back of your head. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
| | A. | I don't think the government has any place in my social/religious life. That's just not the place for the government. The government serves other functions but religious and social planner isn't it. | | | |
| Q. | 1. What do Christians think the meaning of 'Separation of Church & State' mean? | Related Search:
Government | | | It seems that some antichrists out there think it means 'Separation of Church & United States'. But that isn't what it means at all.
'Separation of Church & State' comes from Amendment 1: Religious establishment prohibited. Freedom of speech, of press, right to assemble & to petition.
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 peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. And another ? is 'Why do people assemble (unpeaceably) around funerals of our military & protest our military who died for our country. When this is an 'unpeaceful assembly' that takes away the rights of the families of the loved ones who died? Isn't this type of protest actually unconstitutional?
Since it is really threatening other Americans & taking away their rights.
Please answer both questions.
I didn't cut & paste anything. And the 'Separation of Church & State' is to help us understand the 1st Amendment.
John the Baptist, I don't think protesting peacefully in front of an abortion clinic is the same as protesting a funeral. At an abortion clinic, people are aborting their babies (killing them). At a funeral people are remembering their loved ones life. Protesting other peoples rights to go to their loved ones funeral in peace because their loved one died for our country, is unconstitutional. That isn't a peaceful protesting in anyway I can understand.
Protesting about abortion is speaking for the rights of the littlest 'who'. The biggest lie of all is that littlest 'who' isn't a 'who' at all.
| | A. | As has been previously eloquently stated in other answers to this question, the terminology "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution, it was used in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. You may read it here: [Link]
As one can clearly see by the context of this respectiful letter, Thomas Jefferson supported his constituents and "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Thomas Jefferson also PERSONALLY donated out of his own funds to a Bible society to see that every American household had a Bible, AND they had prayers in Congress while Thomas Jefferson was in Office as President, AND Thomas Jefferson APPROVED as President funds to be used out of the National Treasury for printing Bibles to be used as READING TEXTBOOKS in the public schools.
Clearly, Jefferson's intent has been twisted backwards so far out of shape as to bring to mind another of Jefferson's quotes "write any law you wish, only allow me the interpretation, and I'll do as I wish." This is what the liberals have done to Jefferson's intent. Learn more about America's Godly Heritage as a Nation and Thomas Jefferson here: [Link] /
The Founders of our Nation who wrote the Constitution had JUST had a victory in armed conflict against a tyranical government that had an OFFICIAL STATE CHURCH, known as the Church of England. They DID NOT want an Offical Church of America, but they certainly didn't outlaw religion. When is the last time anyone heard of a lawsuit brought against the STATE by the ACLU for "prohibitting the free exercise (of religion) thereof?" In Jefferson's intent, there is NOTHING unconstitutional about a Nativity scene in a public park or a school play or public prayers OUT LOUD IN JESUS NAME AT ANY EVENT, ON ANY PROPERTY, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE.
That the founding fathers wholeheartedly supported the PUBLIC EXPRESSION of religious sentiments can be seen in that several of the original 13 Colonies had in their STATE CONSTITUTIONS requirements for ANY PUBLIC OFFICEHOLDER that they MUST BELIEVE in an eternal system of rewards and punishments. (Not any particular Denomination, just Judeo-Christian ideals)
To me as a Christian, separation of church and state means that the STATE cannot make an Official State Religion, (the state can't run the church); but the church NEEDS TO RUN the STATE, through having men and women in public office who love and respect God and are totally unashamed to make PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT decisions based on that type of conscience. My scripture reference is: Pro 29:2 When the righteous are increased, the people rejoice: but when a wicked man beareth rule, the people sigh.
Don't give me any of this hogwash about "legislating morality"--ALL LAWS represent SOMEONE'S morals, who do we want ours to represent, God's or _________. (If you fill in the blank, you're wrong.)
This concludes my answer to your first question. As to the second question, I have a brother who has recently purchased a Harley-Davidson with the EXPRESS PURPOSE of riding with the Patriot Guard to counter these protests. My sentiments have been expressed here further:
[Link]
That all being said, I support their constitutional right to protest as long as it's PEACEFUL. Why? Because the First Ammendment was not written to protect POPULAR SPEECH. If their protest becomes loud and unruly to the point that it is disturbing the peace, then that is a SEPARATE issue. I have been arrested as an abortion protester, and I think OUTLAWING ANY particular KIND of speech, regardless of how despicably hateful, is a very slippery slope that I don't wish to venture onto. If you go to the right websites, they'll tell you how much of a MAJORITY of the American people support abortion. I don't believe this, but they have freedom of speech. I will defend to the death their right to be wrong. | | | |
| Q. | Is this a step in the right direction to protect separation of church and state? | Related Search:
Government | | | Americans United Says Obama Should Act Swiftly to Fix Constitutional Flaws of 'Faith-Based' Office
[Link]
Affirming his support for separation of church and state, Obama said his approach to faith-based funding would follow "a few basic principles." "First, if you get a federal grant," Obama said, "you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them or against the people you hire on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."
grnbayne-Christian churches can protect and defend the integrity of their mission by not seeking or accepting federal money. Once they feed at the public trough they should accept the limitations.
| | A. | Sounds good to me. | | | |
|
|
