Liberal Corruption exposes the corruption in liberal beliefs, leaders, and ideology through the use of facts and statistics. It is a must read for both liberals who need to see the other perspective and conservatives who want to strengthen their standpoints. In essence, it reveals the truth that has been hidden from Americans by the extremely biased liberal media.

amazon.com/Liberal-Corruption-Young-Rep ... amp;sr=8-1

I "looked inside" on Amazon and found the following in "Section 3: Separation of Church and State."

First, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that there needs to be a separation of church and state. However, it does state, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Although this requires congress to create no laws that persecute or favor a religion, it does not mandate a separation of church and state. One of the only places where the phrase "separation of church and state" is mentioned is in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson on January 1st, 1802, to the Danbury Baptists. The letter entailed a promise that the Danbury Baptists would have religious freedom along with all other religious communities. This private letter, which is not law, should have no weight on our court decisions or our legislature. Yet, the liberals have found a way to make sure their agenda was fulfilled regarding the removal of religion from public schools utilizing this part of the letter.
page 14 of 124?

This is rather amazing because you describe how the Constitution enacts the separation of Church and State while denying that separation exists. The First Amendment in part prevents the Government from prohibiting religious activities while also prohibiting the Government from favoring or establishing one religion above others. That is the mandated separation!

In Thomas Jefferson’s letter that you mention the president refers to the First Amendment and states, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Jefferson describes what the First Amendment accomplishes; it’s a simplified and very important interpretation of the impact that must be considered.

I’m not sure what you mean by “removal of religion from public schools” since students are free to practice their religion (as long as they don’t bother others). I expect you’re on about the removal of lead prayers in public schools where the principal might get on the PA system and expect students to repeat the Lord’s Prayer. Well since public schools use taxpayers’ money, they cannot not favor one religion over another. I’m sure the American public would object if any public school principal allowed Muslim or Buddhist priests to recite prayers over the PA system in a public school. I took a high school class that compared aspects of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity so I don’t think religion has been removed.

First, the constitution does not explicitly use the phrase "separation of church and state," and if the government cannot create any legislation favoring or discriminating against one religion, that is not necessarily separation. The first amendment, instead, prohibits discrimination against religions which is a completely different thing than "separation of church and state." Second, my argument is that Jefferson's message to the Danbury baptists contradicts itself and should not have any legal bearing as it was a private letter. Lastly, there are many public schools across America that have attempted to remove all religion from public schools. For example, there was a case called Fleming v. Jefferson County School District which went to the U.S. Court of Appeals (10th circuit) in 2002. The court upheld the school's authority to prevent students from titling their displayed artwork "God is Love." Is that not a blatant example of public schools banning religion? There are some schools, such as your own, which do incorporate religion, but there are others that do quite the opposite. You school is not representative of every public school in America. My point is that removing religion from public schools is not mandated by the constitution and doing so is detrimental to the students attending those schools.

This twisted immoral reasoning is part of why I left the Republican party. Quite frankly I don't care what the constitution says. I care about what is right and what is wrong. It is clearly wrong to fuse church and state as it puts one group of people above the next. If the constitution needs revision let's get to it.

Same goes with the Bible. Republicans want to turn to a 2000 year old book of myths for guidance and morality. They don't want to actually think their way through tough contemporary issues and instead look up answers in a book written by nomadic desert dwellers.

I feel as though you are misunderstanding my point, Mr. O'Connor. I am not saying that the government should control the state or vice versa, and I even include this statement in my conclusion for the chapter. Instead, what I am arguing is that religion should be allowed in schools and that the constitution, contrary to what liberals claim, does not directly call for a separation of church and state. It only calls for the government to not make any laws favoring one religion over the other.

First, the constitution does not explicitly use the phrase "separation of church and state,"

Whether that phrase is in the Constitution is not relevant. The First Amendment has the effect of erecting such a wall as President Jefferson stated, it's a metaphor. Your argument is similar to those stating since the Constitution does not contain the word "slavery" it therefore says nothing about that.

and if the government cannot create any legislation favoring or discriminating against one religion, that is not necessarily separation.

There is no "if" about it, that is stated explicitly in the first amendment. And yes, that does separate the Government from being able to establish, favor, or discriminate for or against any religion.

The first amendment, instead, prohibits discrimination against religions which is a completely different thing than "separation of church and state."

Just as there is no "if" about it, there is no "instead" about it. The wall of separation restricts in two directions. The people are free to express religious ideas and the Government cannot favor or restrict one religion over another. You cannot truly have freedom of religion without a wall of separation guaranteeing religious ideas can be expressed and Government cannot favor or discriminate on a religious basis. I suspect many people attempting to argue against this are not actually promoting religious freedom - they want Christianity to dominate.

...religion should be allowed in schools...

Well you need to explain what you mean. Religion is allowed in private parochial schools. If you're talking about public schools, I take it what most people desire when advocating for religion is a return to the times when a principal or teacher would get on the PA system, read a Christian prayer or Bible verse and expect students to recite it. They are not talking about multi-cultural discussions of religion like the class I mentioned, no they want Christianity to be promoted. I expect you are capable of understanding that using taxpayer money to promote a certain religion in a public school violates the restriction on favoring one religion over another.

YR wrote:Instead, what I am arguing is that religion should be allowed in schools and that the constitution, contrary to what liberals claim, does not directly call for a separation of church and state.

Religion is allowed in schools. Hijabs are allowed, amongst other things(see Nashala Hearn). However, that doesn't mean the School actively promotes any single religion, such as through group prayer over a PA. The students rights should not be infringed upon(within reason), but the school also shall not promote any given religion, through group ritual, plaques, statues, etc. That is per the constitution, and is what we see.

If that isn't a "separation of church and state", then what words should Jefferson have used instead? What words would you use to paraphrase it?

If you're saying that religions should be allowed in schools, what would that look like to you? How does that differ from what we see?

LanDroid, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. That is a fact. Therefore, since it is not included anywhere in it, you cannot argue that the Constitution calls for a separation. If you read the first amendment, it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This makes it clear that there is not necessarily a separation, especially considering it only states that Congress cannot make any law discriminating against or favoring any religious group.

LanDroid wrote: Your argument is similar to those stating since the Constitution does not contain the word "slavery" it therefore says nothing about that.

The Constitution does include the word "slavery." In fact, amendment thirteen says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Ostensibly, you do not have a very thorough knowledge of the Constitution, or you are making an unfit comparison.

I do not believe, as you have insinuated, that Christianity should dominate, nor am I arguing that the Church should control the government. I am merely saying that religion can be incorporated in public spaces as long as the municipality in question is not discriminating against or favoring a religion. For example, like I have mentioned, many liberals have tried to claim that the Constitution mandates a separation, thus meaning that practice of religion cannot be tolerated in public schools (which, keep in mind, are run by local government) under any circumstances. However, since the Constitution does not mandate a separation, students should be permitted to practice and express their religion while in school. As I have stated and proven before, there have been many instances where liberals have tried to limit the practice of religion in schools.

YoungRepublican wrote:... I am merely saying that religion can be incorporated in public spaces as long as the municipality in question is not discriminating against or favoring a religion...

Have you met the Human race?

YoungRepublican wrote:...students should be permitted to practice and express their religion while in school...

Where are they not being allowed to do so?

The Constitution may not say specifically there should be a separation of church and state... but history does.

YR wrote:I am merely saying that religion can be incorporated in public spaces as long as the municipality in question is not discriminating against or favoring a religion.

Here's an example of what I mentioned in another thread. It's easy to ignore what you want on forums like this, and only reply to posts that make you feel good.

YR, you were responding directly to LanDroid. However, my comments above cut to the point here. They're available and visible, and challenge your reply. Why wouldn't you also respond to that, unless you don't have a valid answer?

As I have stated and proven before, there have been many instances where liberals have tried to limit the practice of religion in schools.

This issue isn't black and white. Just like freedom of speech is limited, and not completely free. You can't curse in certain circumstances(publicly around children), you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't directly threaten the president. You can't lie in court, or in writing with respect to your finances. Speech isn't completely free.

If your religious creed dictates violence against non-believers, then your religious practice will be limited. The freedoms we have are not permitted without exception. There are exceptions to freedom of expression of religion, and the line we draw is ever shifting. In France, they are drawing the line further in the direction of limiting wearing the Hijab. Is that shift acceptable in the US under the constitution?

Naturally, the issue isn't about violent religious doctrine. We can agree that it should be limited. However, should any non-violent and non-harmful religious practice be allowed? That's also not clear-cut. What if your religion requires prayer every day between 9am and 10am. Should that right be allowed even in public schools? If you ascribe to a religion that requires you to eat pizza at 2pm every day, is the school obligated to allow a pizza hut delivery?

Down to the more spurious... should someone be allowed to privately pray in school? I think so. There's no issue there. Should someone be allowed to chant "there is no god" repeatedly in a quiet voice? Sure, that's more or less the same. Should someone be allowed to chant "death to the infidels" for 5 minutes once per hour, if that is their religious practice? I'm not so sure.

The issue here isn't whether or not religious practices should be limited in schools. They should. The issue is where to draw the line.