You cannot post here - you can only read.
Here is the
link to the new forum:
The First Amendment in Regards to Religion
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Topic: The First Amendment in Regards to Religion
Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 21:05
Created this so we don't hijack the other thread. Lets continue the discussion here.
The part that I boldened is consistent with what I'm saying. If you interpret "establishment of religion" as a religious establishment (an institution) then the first amendment states that government cannot make any laws (or policies) concerning religion. Having a policy of paying chaplains out of the state budget clearly runs counter to this principle.
Those who want these services should pay for them out of their own pockets. I want lots of things, but I don't expect the government to subsidize them for me. Government doesn't even subsidize healthcare, and we're going to subsidize people's superstitions? This is ludicrous.
Plus, I highly doubt the state would subsidize a druid to come and perform ceremonies if someone in the army was a neo-pagan. Or that they would pay a priest of scientology, or a rastafarian to come and smoke weed with the soldiers. Prohibiting this is a good thing, but we should apply this to all religions.
I don't know why I specifically said army chaplains... I meant chaplains in general. So yes, I agree that there shouldn't be chaplains involved in any government institution UNLESS the chaplains are coming for free, or those participating pay for the services out of their own pockets. But to take state money (the money of the people) and use it for a religious service, is unreasonable and it should be outlawed.
I would argue they had organized religion as a whole in mind. Its consistent with many of their personal attitudes towards religion. Look at the Jeffersonian Bible for example, the man was clearly a deist (as opposed to a theist) and clearly had ideas contrary to any religious institution. The constitution itself is a slap in the face of religion--- There was no freedom of speech, freedom to pursue one's own happiness or freedom of the press when religious institutions were in control of societies.
Thats an interesting interpretation, and you might be right. The way I see it though, is that the state only has rights insofar as they do not run counter to the constitution. If the constitution says congress cannot make laws or policies concerning religion, then this rule would have to apply to state governments as well. The tenth amendment, which gives states their rights, says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But the powers delegated to the United States clearly prohibit the creation of a law regarding religion. If the powers delegated to the United States did not mention religion, then the states would have rights to establish a religion. But this is not the case.
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!
Õ”Õ«Õ¹ Õ¥Õ¶Ö„ Õ¢Õ¡ÕµÖ Õ€Õ¡Õµ Õ¥Õ¶Ö„Ö‰
|Forum Jump||Forum Permissions
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum