# So Called Seperation of Church and State **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2002, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-called-seperation-of-church-and-state/116551 "2002-06-29T06:17:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2002, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-called-seperation-of-church-and-state/116551/101 "2002-07-02T23:33:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Apparently you have no clue how impartant it is to " indulge some members in a bit of religious devotion". As petty as you make it sound is why i get defensive when others like to dissregard our first amendment right to freedom of religion. On the contrary. I take my faith very seriously and, like **Tris** , I object to it being trivialized in the manner that those who push for government-sponsored prayer would wish. These folks should know that having a school or government conduct a prayer service is inappropriate and they should make the effort to meet separately to pray without accepting their prayer from the government. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2002, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-called-seperation-of-church-and-state/116551/102 "2002-07-02T23:53:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > \*\* > > **Joel** , (oh, BTW, I put people’s names in bold simply to distinguish them from the rest of the text. It’s easy to miss when someone’s talking to you otherwise, especially when your handle is all lowercase, like mine. It’s nothing personal.) > > Anyway, **Joel** , I think you missed an option: > > 1. Continuing the discussion in a genuine attempt to understand others’ positions and thoroughly explain yours to them. (Possible, but takes guts and patience.) \*\* Even though I’m through debating in this thread, I will respond to this post. I do genuinely understand other’s positions, I just happen to disagree. Understanding and agreeing are two different things. And I have thoroughly explained my point of view. Reading the messages I have already posted should clearly tell you what I believe, and why I believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Mandos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mandos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandos)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-called-seperation-of-church-and-state/116551/103 "2002-07-03T02:45:42Z")
Propaganda. It would seem that what we are dealing with could be considered propaganda. The government doesn’t control the media, but it controls money and public schools. Money is everywhere, and thus, suggestions of God’s existence are everywhere. Now, I am not an atheist. However, I can see how this could make it very difficult to teach my children that there isn’t a God. Especially when they are pressured to state that the United States is a nation “under God.” This implants the idea that God exists. I personally believe that separation of church and state means that the government can’t have any dealings with religion. In other words, it must be completely neutral in that regard. The actions of government officials, when they are not performing official actions, are nothing more than the actions of normal people. Such actions should not be tampered with. However, official actions by the government that are not religiously neutral might honor the word of the Constitution, but the spirit is lost. Propaganda is dangerous. I don’t know if it’s supposed to be propaganda, but it can definitely be viewed that way. For this reason it is an important issue if the government supports a religious belief. It should be neutral. What if the government began putting “All hail Satan! Satan the Almighty! In Satan we trust!” everywhere. Would Christians sit on their hands and say that the government has every right to take such action? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-called-seperation-of-church-and-state/116551/104 "2002-07-03T19:03:34Z")
Just to recap the exchange, since I’m getting lost: Me: Let’s say that a public school broadcasts Christian prayers every morning over the loudspeakers. A judge makes a ruling and says “hey, you can’t use government property to broadcast your religous beliefs to young children.” (The “being able to have goverment resources used to promote their religious beliefs” I was referring to in my question) Now that Christians have been prohibited from using government property to proselytize in a manner that other beliefs do not possess, have their rights been infringed? Saen: I see you failed to state the reason the judge would have tried to stop the announcements. You intentionally left it ambiguous. Just wondering if you are trying to trap me or something. Me: I have no idea what you’re talking about. Saen: Fine then. I say it will be illegal for that judge to deny resources to that person or group. Ok, so it is your stance, that if one religious group wished to use public schools to broadcast their prayer every morning, while other religious groups do not have the opportunity to do so, it would be illegal to deny them the right to preach even though no other group has the same opportunity? Or do you think it should be illegal to prevent any group from using public school resources and its student’s required attendence for whatever advocacy it decides to promote? > [@](#): > > It was just an anlogy per my preface. But how about this one? Students are given an art contest that all students are able to participate in. The winner gets to have their art placed upon covers of official books. The one who won had the word God in her art. She was required to take that word out, because it had God in it, before it could be published. It is well known that this is the artwork of an individual who won a contest and in reference to that would be known that the artists veiws do not necessarily represent that of the school. Again, it was not considered inappropriate, but considered as a violation of SoCS. Was this an actual court case, where the judge ruled that due to SoCS the student had to take the word “god” out of her artwork? If so, what is the status of the case and do you have a cite? If it was NOT an official and binding court case, you have again failed to show how the authoritative interpretation of SoCS has been at issue in a particular situation. > [@](#): > > Well the forums will still be here when you get time on your hands. And since tomndebb and I are still debating it I will await your response. Thank you, but I do not feel the need to post in my words a viewpoint that I feel tomndebb is handling quite well. If I have a viewpoint that I feel has not been addressed I will chime in, or if you have a particular issue that you feel only my erudite commentary can illuminate for you, I shall certainly assay it when I get a chance. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-called-seperation-of-church-and-state/116551/105 "2002-07-03T22:12:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > \*\* > > Ok, so it is your stance, that if one religious group wished to use public schools to broadcast their prayer every morning, while other religious groups do not have the opportunity to do so, it would be illegal to deny them the right to preach even though no other group has the same opportunity? Or do you think it should be illegal to prevent any group from using public school resources and its student’s required attendence for whatever advocacy it decides to promote? I never said that. I said it would be illegal for the judge to just say they connot use public property to broadcast their religious beliefs to young children using public property. You intentionally left out the part about denying others the same opportunity. Do you now have an idea what I am talking about? And since you deemed to extrapolate the reasons behind the ruling, anyone would assume you would refer to it being based upon SoCS (wich is what this thread is about), and not denying rights to others. > [@](#): > > Was this an actual court case, where the judge ruled that due to SoCS the student had to take the word “god” out of her artwork? If so, what is the status of the case and do you have a cite? If it was NOT an official and binding court case, you have again failed to show how the authoritative interpretation of SoCS has been at issue in a particular situation. [Girl sues to put ‘God’ on yearbook](http://www.qctimes.com/rednews/2002/04/16/build/local/story98.html) As far as I know the court has not ruled yet. But I have not failed on presenting authoritive enterpretations when I told you that what is deemed authoritive is subjective. Especially since who you defined as authoritive is prone to refuse to even look at the case as my cites have shown. > [@](#): > > Thank you, but I do not feel the need to post in my words a viewpoint that I feel tomndebb is handling quite well. If I have a viewpoint that I feel has not been addressed I will chime in, or if you have a particular issue that you feel only my erudite commentary can illuminate for you, I shall certainly assay it when I get a chance. 🙂 \*\* Well, tomndebbs arguement is not relative to the discussion because , as I have stated, his argument is about appropriateness rather than the SOCS . So if you feel an irrelevent argument backs up your claims i don’t feel the need to discuss the matter with you anymore. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-called-seperation-of-church-and-state/116551.md?page=5)