Separation of Church & State
As seen in:
January 12th, 2006 Record Herald
&
February 25th, 2006 News Journal
&
March 8th, 2006 Times Gazette
We hear it all the time; Separation of Church & State. Does it say this in the United States Constitution, or, more specifically, the Bill of Rights?
The answer is no.
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads: 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.
Nowhere does it state that government shall rule to keep religion out of state matters either. My question is this: Who was the first person to say 'Separation of Church & State'? Or whoever said it was the government's job to keep the theory of intelligent design out of school? If the state can allow the teaching of evolution, then why not intelligent design? It can easily be argued that the study of evolution is a religion. (I'll give those who don't agree with me a moment to calm down.) Think about that for a moment, unless of course you've turned the newspaper into a crumpled mess on the floor for the cat to play with at this point.
Intelligent design says that something was smart enough to make everything work together. He/She put the earth just the right distance from the sun, made the conditions just right, set the ball rolling with animals and made humans dominate, then sat back to watch what would happen.
Evolution says that something happened, all of the makings of life suddenly existed, and life was made where no life was before. Different species developed over millions of years out of slime in a pond, only one got smart, and there you have life as we know it.
I don't see the problem with throwing both of them out there and letting our kids draw from their parents' teachings and their own brains (oh, I forgot, we don't want them to use those while in school, just to do what they're told). Hmm, maybe if presented with both, kids would lean towards intelligent design.
Why doesn't anyone ever bring up the part in the First Amendment that states; 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'? This sounds like prohibiting to me!
Now don't get me started on the Ten Commandments!
posted by Logan VanLandingham at 4:21 PM
2 Comments:
I would like to see a change in the Letters to the Editor format. All letters about religion and the First Amendment (separation of church and state) should be published on the Religion pages on Fridays. I realize it would be a tough call for the editor where to put some letters because it is hard for me to understand if a person wants to preach God’s word or just shove what they believe down everyone’s throat and have world domination of their religion.
I guess world domination would be put on the Viewpoints (op-ed) page.
Today, the Gospel is everywhere from churches to bumper stickers, and I hope it is also in your heart and home. But Jesus said to his disciples tell no one that he is the Christ because His kingdom was not connected to an earthly kingdom. I realize this topic is the 1,000-pound gorilla sitting on the table, but I believe religion can and should be discussed in a proper form.
A 200-word limit will not permit me to list all my argument and I hope not to offend anyone with this suggestion.
Another topic for the series of columns being written by the Garas: Did Lincoln and U.S. Grand protest war?
Some nerve one must have to ask an editor to change the format of a newspaper because he doesn't agree with a column. 'All letters about religion and the First Amendment should be published on the Religion pages '. The First Amendment is the same one that assures freedom of speech, is it not? Does a column about this freedom belong on the religion page? According to Jack it does. What about letters regarding protesters? The right to protest is also in the First Amendment, but that must also fall under the religion banner, according to Jack.
I didn't think my column sounded as though I was 'preaching' God's word. I don't think I shoved it down Jack's throat, either. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he was reading the column freely, and could have stopped at any time. It doesn’t sound like I was forcing it on anyone. Don’t like it, don’t read it. I also didn't know I was out for world domination. I'll take it though. . .
And finally, my column on Church & State was 310 words, yet Jack says he is limited to 200 words. It didn't stop me, why should it anyone else, or is he just hiding behind this claim so he wouldn’t have to stand behind his words?
Post a Comment
<< Home