Michael P. O'Connor

My Life

Finally some good news, the Anti-Christan Lawyer Union losses a case

Categories: News, Politics

Comments: 2 Comments

Published on: December 21, 2005

PowerBall is running an article how the ACLU failed to push their agenda this time. The judge ruled that the 1st amendment does not create a wall of separation between church and state. Lets look at what the First amendment really says
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.
From that the only part that is important is
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I don’t see a wall there, I just see that the government can not institute a state religion, or say to someone they can not be a member of a particular religion. There is nothing about “separation of church and state” nothing about not allowed to mentioning anything remotely religious (see Dover pa) or anything about “freedom from religion” All I see there is Freedom of religion.
Aka you can be what ever Christian (Lutheran, Catholic, Easter Orthidox, Baptist, etc), Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, Secular Humanist, Buddhist, Hindu, what ever, but you can not use the law to force some one from another faith out of the public square, or force them into hiding.
Christians have as much right be heard in the public square as any one else.

2 Comments

Rob says:

December 21, 2005 at 10:53 am

The “separation of Church and State” bit comes from Thomas Jefferson, and has been held by the strict constructionist judges to explain the intent of the writers of the Constitution. If a strict constructionist judge had been judging the case, this case would have been decided the other way.

Of course, the whole “strict constructionist” pro/neg bit is merely a way of saying “we want people who make the Constitution say what WE want it to say.”

Whose version of the 10 Commandments did they use? The Jewish, the Catholic, or the Proetstant version?

By using one version, do they establish the primacy and importance of one of those groups over the other? Are they saying that all religions are equal but one more equal than others, that there is only one governmentally recognized version of the 10 Commandments? The implication is there.

As long as it’s the group you belong to, all’s cool.
Michael P. O'Connor says:

December 21, 2005 at 11:04 am

Well there are 2 versions of the 10 commandments, in that they splite in one area and combine in another, most Proetstants (excluding Lutherians) use the Jewish version, Roman Catholics and Lutherans use a differiant. I am not sure what version the Muslims and Eastern Orthidox Christians use. (for the record I am LCMS Lutheran) I would guess that the EO probably use the RCC and LC version.
The differiant between the 2 are that one version RCC & LC ones has 3 in the first table, and 7 in the second table, in the second table covete wife, and covete house are 2 diffent ones. In the Jewish, and Proestant one, they have 4 in the first table, and 6 in the second table, and the split the You shall have no other Gods & not make gravin images.
As to which version, I don’t think it matters, I think chances are hight it probably would be the Jewish/Prodistant version, because I do think that is what most people think of when they think of the 10 commandments. And I don’t see how using one version over the other is saying the state is saying this version/religions are more important. By that logic goverment employees should cars from the goverment, is it not the goverment saying this car is better then that car when they do that? How about OSes, or computers, are they not saying windows is the best computer by using windows, what about Mac and Linux users?