ADVERTISMENT
Faith in the Public Square
13 Comments
POSTED: Monday, May 17, 2010 - 8:33pm
UPDATED: Thursday, May 27, 2010 - 3:47pm
Faith…religion in the public square. It’s a divisive issue and has been for years. So, se set up a debate, to find out the facts.
Now, to debate this issue, we went to two experts. Barry lynn is the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Matt Staver of the Liberty council of Liberty University. Both of them have argued these very kinds of cases before the Supreme Court.
Religious symbols in the public square is a contentious issue. Crosses, nativity scenes, Ten Commandments, many courts have ruled that they are both secular and religious to allow them to stay. And that doesn’t sit well with either man.
STAVER
“Certainly, it would be a big loss if you had to call a religious symbol something other than religious. If you had to say for example that “In God We Trust” doesn’t really mean “In God We Trust” because we’ve said it so many times it just goes in one ear and out the other.”
LYNN
“I think there’s a profound disrespect when one takes something like the cross, which is the central symbol of Christianity, and have a judge say, well maybe it means somethintg secular.
STAVER
“That cross is a symbol for hope beyond the grave. And I think that is what it instills in people. I don’t think promotes religion, I think it instills hope.”
LYNN
“I think that the government should stay out of this business, they should not be defining for religious people what the cross does or doesn’t permit.”
STAVER
“I think that court ought to make a distinction between an awknowledgment of religion, which is permissable and establishment of religion, which is not.”
LYNN
“Several of our founding fathers didn’t want there to be a mix between church and state because they were afraid that this would end up hurting the church, that it would water down the message.”
STAVER
“Things that are passive, that don’t coerce anyone to religious belief, those are permissable awknowledgment. But when it goes across that line, then it becomes an establishment. I think that should be the clear dividing line.”
Comments News Comments
HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF ILLEGALS HELD A CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION IN THE PARK THAT YOUR TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR....OH WAIT...THEY DO ALREADY......DANG
How would you feel about Christians in the park (city state or federal) holding a religious service? would that be ok with everyone that helps pay for the park with their tax money?
All these religions have the same right to the parks. They must all follow the same regulations for the use of the parks. Unlike San Diego who banned the Boy Scouts after how many years for religious reasons.
HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT A WICCA CHURCH HOLDING THEIR RELIGIOUS SERVICE IN THE PARKS?
Matthew 6
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Katie007 May 17, 2010
at 10:07pm
The government is trying mightily to get rid of religion i.e. belief in God and enthrone themselves.
Proverbs 28:12 "When the righteous triumph there is great glory, but when the wicked rise, men hide themselves."
"Forsaking Scriptures as a guide for all things leads not only to chaos but also, as history has illustrated, to the totalitarian state, a government that totally controls its citizens."
"...Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion,..."
Dictionary.com defines "respecting" as setting above, or defering to, not separating. Establishment as an organization or building.
Churches and such should be treated equally by the government and not defered to for laws.
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Courts don't have the power to create law. Congress is forbidden from banning religion in the public square.
Can we go back to the era in which public displays and pronouncements about one's religious or political preferences were considered to be IN BAD TASTE? Why can't people keep personal things personal any more? What does boring someone else with your preferences have to do with anything? It's personal and PRIVATE. It seems these Pharisees are so proud of themselves they have forgotten we are each works-in-progress, so they've dropped their homework to concentrate on what others think and do.
Post new Comment
ADVERTISMENT
Special Features
Special Reports
