Written by a 15 year old boy.

[Mangee]

Since the Pledge of Alegiance  and the Lord's Prayer are not allowed in schools anymore because the word 'God' is mentioned, a kid in Arizona wrote the attached.

                    NEW SCHOOL PRAYER

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of him very odd

If scripture now the school recites
It violates The Bill Of Rights
And any time my hide I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now

Our hair can be orange, purple or green
Thats no offense; it's a freedom scene
The law i specific the law is precise
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice

For praying in a public hall
May offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate
God's name is prohibited by the state

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks
They've outlawed guns but First the Bible
To quote the Good Book makes me liable

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen
And the 'unwed daddy' our Senior King
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong
We're taught that such 'judgements' do not belong

We can get our condoms and birth controls
Study withchcraft, vampires and totem poles
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed
No word of God must reach this crowd

It's scary here I must confess
When chaos reigns the schools a mess
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot;my soul please to take!
Amen
-----------------------------------------------------------

[Savas]

Well, lets look at a few examples of government interfering with religious practices.

Polygamy. The mormon practice of polygamy is a part of their religious beliefs. Yet, we've made it illegal for them to practice it. In fact, one may argue that by making it illegal, we've helped foment the entire situation in which these compounds exist that take advantage of young, ignorant girls.

Gay marriage: Another example of preventing a group from practicing their beliefs.

Use of Peyote in American Indian religious ritual: the 1990 decision of the supreme court to prosecute those using peyote for ritual purposes; another example of government interference.

Abortion (Please, lets not start a debate on whether it's right or wrong, I'm talking from a  freedom of religion viewpoint only).
Different religions have different views on the legality of this issue (I mean from a "scripture" point of view). Ban it, curtail it, and you're imposing the religious ideals of one group over another.

Two of these issues have had policy set by the government under the influence of the religious right. The 1996 "Defense Marriage Act" to block gay marriage, and the 1990 ruling on peyote.

The last two are older laws; polygamy being an old law that's being upheld under the present administration, and abortion under continual attack and gradually being whittled away.

So... here's a few examples of government being affected by the christian majority.

Ironically, polygamy is especially so. But that's not surprising...inter-sect fighting between members of the same belief system is often the bloodiest. After all, the Utah war between the federal government and the latter day saints in the 1850's is a perfect example in American History.
(The mountain Meadow Massacre in 1857 of a group of california bound settlers who weren't even part of this conflict shows that often only the innocent get hurt in these religious disputes).

...of course, the mormon's were determined to set up a theocratic state with latter day saint members holding all positions of power, so they were ironically guilty of the very crimes they were accusing others of...at least in planning.

(BTW, Savas would never practice polygamy. He has enough trouble with one wife. Although I would love the idea of my wife picking up a few more husbands. As first husband, I would reserve and practice my right to sit and laze about all day, contemplating my navel, while the other husbands worked.  :->  )

[Mangee]

There is truly no last word in debates of this type. For thousands of years this has be a back and forth tug-of-war. Religion will always have it's nay sayers, fanatics, fundamentalists and so on. The important thing is that each person be allowed to worship as they please without fear of reprisal from anywhere. Ending this discussion here gives us time to sit back and contemplate the workings of the other persons mind. From this we can add to our own inside-the-head-library and see if perhaps there is a common thread that we may miss in a heated dispute. We class ourelves as intelligent but in the midst of give and take we sometimes overlook the fact that the other person may have a point. There is always some truth in opinions of any sort and it is incumbent on us too seek it out. We deign to give others credit when there is a question of who is right and who is wrong. Most important is to end a discussion when warning signals begin to flash.

[SableZen]

"First, you complained of laws prohibiting religious expression.  We have no such laws. "

-- Engel v. Vitale (1962) the Court ruled that government imposed nondenominational prayer in public school was unconstitutional. Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Court ruled prayer established by a school principal at a middle school graduation was also unconstitutional Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) it ruled that school officials may not directly impose student led prayer during high school football games nor establish an official student election process for the purpose of indirectly establishing such prayer. In 1981, the Court ruled that a Missouri law prohibiting religious groups from using state university grounds and buildings for religious worship was unconstitutional. Congress decided in 1984 that this should apply to secondary and primary schools as well. Some expressions of religion on public property, such as certain displays of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms or Nativity scenes on public land have been ruled to be unconstitutional.

Not a comprehensive list (and only constitutional challenges at the federal level), and beyond the depth of this thread to discuss the right or wrong of specific rulings. But they exist as legal rulings/law.

"Second, Christmas trees on lawns.  Put a Christmas tree on your lawn.  Put six, or ten.  Knock yourself out... etc."

-- Ok. But this is exactly to the point - why has there been legal action over Christmas trees? For example, near where I live - until December 17, 2004 in Pasco County, Florida there was a law banning the display of Christmas trees in county facilities – including libraries, recreation centers and community centers. And there are laws all over the place across the country that still ban Christmas trees in public areas - does government really need to be involved over the placement of Christmas trees to protect us? Where are these ridiculous laws coming from in the first place?

"Fourth, during the past eight years, unimaginable swatches of individual rights have been lost by all of us.  Many of those have been at the behest of the religious right; several are listed in paragraph 4 of the previous comment to which you referred."

-- I'm pointing out real legal constitutional court rulings and specific examples of law being used in this issue in response to you saying I'm using a straw man argument (although I think that's an unbendable and unarguable position to take). But in exchange, again can you cite a concrete example where the 'religious right' has taken away liberties by law?

And I agree this might be getting too intense and going nowhere - so if you want to respond - I'll give you the last word if you want before considering it a agreed to disagree (and I hope no harm done). ;D

[VOR]

I agree that the fear factor is the biggie.  I often feel that many of the things in life are driven by fear, as a whole.  Religion, laws, and so on.  There are many that cross that line b/c they are less afraid of the consequences.  But sometimes, that's really not a bad thing.

[VOR]

I have spoken with Savas about this previously, and we both agreed that this was a possibility (heated debate), especially when you bring up topics such as religion and politics.  Heated debate is great, when people are open minded and willing to listen to all sides of an argument, without name calling, or talking to others in a condescending manner.  

Some are much more educated in these areas.  If you happen to be one of these people, you should strive to educate us, not look down on us b/c we disagree with you or your opinion :)  I hated every professor I had that treated us like **** b/c they were experts in their areas, and they had no problem in letting us know.  

[mrwjd]

Absolutely.  When people take illogical positions, and feel that a logical response is an attack, there really is nowhere to go.  For a discussion to be fruitful, not to mention interesting, there has to be an exchange of ideas, not blows.

It would have been best, I think, if the people who have now said they are not willing to examine any positions other than the "right" ones had said it somewhat earlier.  We have been talking about some fundamental things, and some imperatives that are leading both our national government and our planet into uncharted and dangerous waters.  Struggling to lay out some of the issues in a useful way, and some of the underlying facts, has been worthwhile and fed into interesting discussion, and is well worth the time.  It is quite frustrating now, though, to get the news that others to whom I have written responses in good faith were just playing at it.

Ah, well.  Life is full of disappointments.