‘Rock the Fort’: Will Religious Concert at Fort Bragg Violate the Constitution?
- Posted on September 25, 2010 at 1:45am by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
FORT BRAGG (AP) A Christian event on Saturday for Fort Bragg soldiers and members of the surrounding area is unconstitutional and should be canceled, according to a national watchdog group.
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said in a statement Thursday that the planned event — a concert and other activities called “Rock the Fort” — improperly enlists the military in a bid by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association to win Christian converts.
The Charlotte-based ministry has sponsored similar events on military bases around the country. According to the BGEA’s website, Saturday’s event in Fayetteville is different because civilians as well as military personnel will be able to attend.
“Chaplains at the fort identified 20 churches in the area where most soldiers are involved,” the site says. “The churches are now walking alongside chaplains from Fort Bragg, hosting training and praying for this event.”
The site describes “Rock the Fort” as a chance to hear evangelists speak as well as listen to music by such Christian artists as Hawk Nelson and God Rocks. There’s also a planned set of activities for children.
Bragg, which is home to the U.S. Army Airborne and Special Forces, has about 45,000 people living on post.
In a letter to Secretary of the Army John McHugh sent Thursday, lawyers for Americans United urged that the event be canceled.
“The military‘s participation in a religious event designed to proselytize soldiers and the community departs from the Army’s obligation to maintain ‘official religious neutrality,”‘ the attorneys wrote.
A call to the BGEA was referred to Fort Bragg. Calls to the post’s Public Affairs Office were not immediately returned Thursday.
In its letter to McHugh, Americans United included a letter on Army stationery bearing the signature of Fort Bragg Garrison Chaplain David Hillis. The letter, dated June 2, is addressed to area Christian pastors, asking for assistance with “this unifying Christian event.”
Americans United contends that chaplains in the military are restricted to holding religious services and making other accommodations for soldiers who want to practice their faith while serving in the Army.
“‘Rock the Fort’ is not an event designed to minister to the needs of soldiers unable to otherwise access religious services,” the letter to McHugh says. “Rather, it is an event designed to proselytize soldiers and community members into the worship of Jesus Christ.”
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 583 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 411 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 411 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (358)
van
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 7:55amFirst Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
“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.”
Since Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion where is the violation? This is a Concert!
Report Post »aesaac
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 7:37amyou can discect a flower ostensibly to understand the flower, but in the end you have identified only the parts. you no longer have a flower. the error is the belief that the flower is the sum of its parts. the flower is greater than the sum of its parts. it is alive.
Report Post »phlogiston
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 12:31amaesaac:
Well put, my friend. Just as Carl Sagan said: “The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together.”
Report Post »sokeijarhead
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 7:02amWhat is wrong with these liberals can’t they see this is a choice issue if you want to go then go, if you don’t, don’t. I am a retired Marine with 20 years of service I have seen these type of events before, no one is forced to attend but I would say 90% do, as the military are for the most part christian and conservative. That’s why the liberals are scared of it and the absentee vote.
Report Post »DSTSS2010
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 7:22amI wonder how many Military absentee ballots will “arrive too late to be counted” this upcoming election? If a person is willing to serve his/her Country, their ballots should always be counted!
Report Post »kuuk1
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 6:58amWhen I was in the military I can remember concerts that had religious music, thanking God, etc…where was those crazy leftist then? I feel that the main stream media needs over-hauled, special interest groups need to be ignored, and we on the conservative right need to be more vocal against these insane leftist. Why are a “100 soldiers” going to make a complaint when they don’t even have to be at the advent? New recruits can stay in the billets, go to the movies, shopping, or wherever, the drill sergeant or other leadership does not force anyone to go to events such as this religious event that took place. Special interest groups and the government need to stay out of the peoples rights of free speech and religion…go attack the Muslim faith, bet the media and special interest groups won’t…they will have to go into hiding fearing they will get their heads cut off.
Report Post »SND97
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 6:56amGuys we REALLY need to take our country back, this attack on Christians has got to stop.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 6:55amFrankly, I think it should NOT be held on the base but adjacent to it. Use posters to bring soldiers to the place/event.
FYI, when I was in Germany at Bitberg ABin 1965-67, the Mormon group did NOT have a Church building to use. We used the Base Chapel for services. In today’s world would that be allowed?
Report Post »lazylranch
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 9:05pmAESAAC, In todays world that is allowed. I spent twenty years in the service of my country and served on two different ships. We had several different Chaplains on board and we all used the same space/chapel for our different religious services. The same held true on the bases. Chaplains shared spaces. Our services were well attended. On the smaller ship, we met in the pointy end or bow of the ship. Different church services were at different times and everyone got along just fine.
To state that it is not constitutional for military personnel to attend any kind of ceremony, relegious or otherwise is to restrict our rights as citizens of this great country. If you wish to attend, please feel free to do so, miltiary or not (if the base of opened for your participation). If you don’t wish to attend, then please mind your own business and stay the hell away. Nuf said!
Report Post »Eraty Bab
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 6:39amSo the POTUS can conference call thousands of faith based organizations and urge them to preach Obamacare from the pulpit, but those who fight for our freedoms cannot voluntarily assemble to listen to a few songs and some encouraging words? Our men and women in uniform need all the encouragement they can get cause they sure aren’t getting any support from their Commander-in-Chief.
Report Post »thesixfour
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 6:32amSeparation of Church and state in the Constitution – First Amendment (Amendment I – not a hard one to find i might add) – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
If these butts in government actually READ the Constitution they’d understand what that “separation” is actually for – THEM. What a bunch of clowns.
You have a weapon, it’s called a vote. Use it in November. Don’t let them stop OR intimidate you.
Report Post »ExpertShot
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 5:30amI say WE THE PEOPLE start pushing back & countering every lawsuit with one of our own…stating that we’re being persecuted for trying to freely practice religion (whatever religion that may be). That would throw the Progressive for a loop, they wouldn’t know what to do. I’m an Army wife & there are religious services available for ALL on post. The Chaplains do a wide variety of things, not just hold religious services as the atheists claim….they do workshops all the time w/the families, especially when our guys are deployed & are there for the Soldiers in the BN whenever there is a need, no matter if the Soldier is religious, not religious, Christian, non-christian, etc. Looks like the atheists are ignorant about everything they are talking about.
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 5:41amSo true. Maybe some of our Christian soldiers need to sue for religious freedom. If Muslims can stop work 5 times a day to pray why can’t Christians have a concert?? It seems the only ones that don’t have freedom of religion are Christians.. Why are so many afraid of the precious name of Jesus when His message is LOVE.
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 5:19amI suggest that we all start praying about this situation really hard. Fayetteville, NC is my hometown and believe me those soldiers crave God. Every Sunday the churches are full with our brave military and their families praising God and asking for His guidance. God bless them all.
Report Post »missmarie
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 8:19pmI pray daily for our servicemen and women and their families. I agree with you 100% – I am blessed to attend a church that is bursting with military personnel. God Bless Them! In their absence, we surround their families with love and support. We continually send boxes of love and “stuff” to wherever our military are stationed, well, whenever possible. When a soldier is wounded, the entire church community pulls together to assist them and their families – physically, emotionally, and financially. When we lose a soldier, we’ve lost a family member, and again surround the family with love, support, and long-term helping hands and hearts. As a Christian, we are called to do all these things and happily comply.
I wonder what the “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State” are doing for our military personnel?
Report Post »haloneal
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 4:50amYou know, there a lot more Christians in the U.S. than athiest, I’m sure. So why don’t all Christians in U.S. take a stand against these so called organizations, who are trying to take religion out of the U.S. We can take them, and I don’t mean with weapons, but with our Bibles held high and the word of GOD. Old saying: The pen is mightier than the sword.
Report Post »Robin6
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 4:18amAmazing how much they pick and choose from what they call “constitutional”
Report Post »StrinaM
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 3:57amIf this is unconstitutional, then so is all the prayer before ALL meals at the academies, and the benedictions at ALL military events and ceremonies…. Hell, having churches on BASES would have to be considered unconstitutional! They aren’t FORCING soldiers to attend, just offering it as a venue.
Report Post »burnt0ffering
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 3:43amim actually physically disgusted by this….. these army personnel either have been risking their lives for a while or are about to start to, so what if they want to have a concert on the fort grounds dedicated to christ? it looked like they were having a blast at the concert which i know from experience can be a blast(not christian rock for me more death metal) and what right do these a hole atheists have to take away their joy? this is madness. atheism has become less of a non religion and more of an anti religion religion
Report Post »Red Blooded
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 3:06amIslam is not a religion, it’s an Ideology, and is self-declared as the enemy of Free Peoples, (i.e. people who govern themselves).
Report Post »bubbie
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:42amMuslims have a special place to pray at the pentagon. obama has a dinner with muslims at the White House. Billy Graham’s son was not allowed to pray at the pentagon on the day of prayer. why didn’t these seperation of church and state people have a problem with all of that? Christianity is under attack. Liberals hate the fact that christians believe the bible is the word of God and is the ultimate authority! We will all be judged by God someday and I feel sorry for these people when they each have their day in God’s court! I am sure that obama will be suprised when he gets his judgement day and he is standing alone before God to be judged. We are told to pray for these people in the Bible and thats just what we must do! World bank, world court, world health organization, world trade organization.All these powerful institutions are exactly what they say they are, components of the coming one world government that was prophesied in the Bible over 2000 years ago. GOD BLESS AMERICA and her soldiers!!!
Report Post »RyuNoKai
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:35amLooks like its time to fire all those damned chaplains running around being unconstitutional!
Seriously, they’ll go if they want. There’s no gun to their head. Also, who cares if they prosyelytize? You gonna get mad at Coca-Cola for advertising with fat polar bears whom obviously don’t need the soda? Get a life. If you don’t want to hear about God, you won’t be there.
Report Post »veritas51322
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:47amExcellent point about the polar bears!!
Report Post »sbleve
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 9:04amThe power of personal choice. Or, is choice an allowance by elite rulers to the surf class?
Report Post »DOCMMV
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:28amSeparation of Church and State. Funny.
Report Post »There used to be what was called “Three Estates”. They were the Clergy (Church), The Nobility and the Populus. When news reporting began to take hold and become an objective observer and reporter of facts (seems like eons ago) they we deemed a “Fourth Estate”.
When the RCC began to take power in Europe, they became the de facto State. After Luther and the Protestant uprising the Anglican Church became the de facto State in England. Archbishops would crown kings, and maintain an enormous input into the affairs of State.
America was to be different. There was to be no King. The variety of Christian denominations could not meld well with a Church rulership. Therefore the concept of a wall of separation between Church and State was to ensure that the Republic answered only to the people and not to an amalgamation of clergy. Furthermore, there was to be no Christian denomination elevated above another Christian denomination for purposes of governing. This results in the complete ban of the idea of a State Church as (their) recent history had already survived such a problem.
Therefore, as long as there is no “official” denomination of Christianity declared in America, then religious freedom stands supreme. Do as you will.
BigDaddyBear
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:23amIt seems clear to me that this organization has nothing better to do than to try and stop any form of public religious activity. They don’t really care what its for,they just don’t want anyone to hear any of the music or any of the readings, or quite possibly learn something religious. My feelings are that these who want to try and stop and control all of this need to understand that this is a free country, and we have the right to practice our faiths openly and wherever we want and they can bitch and complain all they want, because we aren’t giving in to these few.
Report Post »LadybugsTX
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:04amThis really ****** me off. Are all soldiers required to attend this event or is it voluntary? I am sure that if the Muslim soldiers wanted to drag their little carpets out into the main square five times a day to pray, disrupting daily activity, these same douchebags would be hollering that the Muslim soldiers had a right to practice their religion whenever the want according to the constitution.
Report Post »carol m
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:03amWonderful, these poor soldiers may be sent to God knows where to do God knows what and they can’t even have a prayerful event before they go. These American United for the Separation of Church and State should be put before a firing squad. No one is preselytizing anyone. No one is forced to go to the service, I could understand if the military was forcing anyone to go. God save us from these people soon, please. I can’t take anymore.
Report Post »Gita
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:03amWhen we take back our country we need to educate these groups on the constitution! We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion!
Report Post »luvtheright
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 1:49pm@GITA – you are so right! The liberal regressives have twisted everything in this country to their socialist/marxist agenda. WE THE PEOPLE are awaking every day learning more truths about our history and founding fathers! It is because of Americans that our great country is great. With the grace of God, we will continue as free men!
Report Post »M.Witherington
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 5:28pmI agree 100 %.
Report Post »Large Eagle
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:01amI guess if this is true – then no rock and roll bands should be allowed to play. Satan’s doctrine pushes and supports many rock and roll bands. Satanic worship is a religion and expanding in high fashion in the US. Let us be fair and not allow our troops to be entertained by anyone. – Go figure. Do these left loonies think they own every thing. I guess the next requirement to be a soldier will be a pledge to shariah law. Then they can get counseling from Hidal as soon as our justice department finds him not guilty for killing all those soldiers in Fort Hood.
Report Post »Midwest Belle
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 5:05amTo Large Eagle
you said “Do these left loonies think they own every thing?”
Answer – they don’t think they own everything, they think they know best for everyone.
Report Post »Hugh Williams
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 9:22amHey now… don’t go after rock bands.
Report Post »LadybugsTX
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 1:59amUh… no. The Constitution says freedom of religion, not freedom from it. The separation of church and state was to protect the religious from government oppression NOT to protect Goverment from religion.
Report Post »Elrik68
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 3:27amI’m not sure you got that one right? I believe it was originaly written to keep the CHURCH from running the government. Not to keep the government nor the governed away from God. It was not the King (government) that was burning people on the cross, or testing whether or not they could float!!! With that said… Rock on… If someones shows up to listen to a free concert.. Then who has the authourity to judge their freedom of choice???? Seperation of Church and State simply means…. That unless we get to ELECT the heads of the CHURCH they have NO authourity over us.
debkirkland
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:08amLadybugstx has it right. Freedom of Religion. We have the freedom to practice any religion our God-given conscience gives us. The government has no right to dictate our religion, therefore no right to interpretation of it, therefore no right dictate our religious practices. It was government instituted religions who used religion as an excuse to burn people at the stake and tested people’s ability to float… among other things. Think about it. Most evils of the world use religion as a tool to accomplish their ends. It is the only way they can manipulate the masses into submission to evil.
Report Post »America was founded on the common denominator of all Judeao Christian religions: the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (property). God created man with that natural inclination to want to live, to be free from incumbrances and to protect the fruits of his labor. Natural Law dictates that these inclinations exist just as Natural Law dictates the rising and setting of the sun. In other words, these things may be suppressed, but they cannot be taken away no more that one can dictate the time of sunrise and sunset. Being endowed to man by the Creator, they are to be protected.
JJ Coolay
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:10amErik that’s incorrect. It was intended to keep the government from interfering with church’s business
Report Post »luvGod
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:11amYou are so right, Ladybugsstx. Glenn Beck had a very informative show yesterday on the issue of separation of church & state. What else are they going to take away from our military? This is absurd! Like they said, no one is being forced to attend. Why should their rights to assemble themselves together for a worship service be any different from ours? It is very sad that the Muslims are free to gather and pray on the WH lawn, but our servicemen can’t gather together 2 worship & pray? I guess the next thing to go will be the chaplains! Heaven forbid!!!!!!!
Report Post »americanfirst
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 9:16amI believe the THEORY of separation of church and state using the Church of England as the model was intended NOT to keep people from exercising religion according to the dictates of their own conscience or even to keep religion from being infused into a government if the people see it fit as a standard of government but rather to avoid a state sponsored national religion. As was initially the case in England – the reason they came up with Freedom of Religion.
Report Post »In our case, we have a country modeled and founded on Christian principles and ideals and we believe this to be good and worthy standard as a compelling force for it’s citizens. The people have that right and duty to dictate what it’s standard will be – ours is Christian. In their wisdom, the fathers saw a problem with having a STATE SPONSORED religion, in essence, forcing everyon to fall in line which is, fundamentally, wholly incongruent with Christianity which is wholly based on “free agency” the gift to choose your walk with God according to the dictates of your own conscience. Our founders thought that was a pretty good concept to consider and so they articulated it as a theory – something worthy of further inspection. It is a worthy thought.
Today – as expected there are those among us willing to consolidate power unto themselves and they reserve the right to interpret everything we have stood for to their favor. Intellectual honesty and truth seeking is not the order for these people. Power at whatever price is. The truth is they perceive the American Christian as someone who is inherently weak, naive and/or to be sure incapable of living up to such a standard. They could be right. But I believe otherwise.
Christians would do well by understanding this perception and reclaiming that which is rightfully theirs.
I may be wrong – but this is the way I’ve perceived the issue. Submitted for consideration.
joet
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 9:30amELRICK68 I’m afraid you are wrong. The “separation” of church and state was merely a letter from Jefferson to a baptist church allaying their fears of the government taking away their rights. The Constitution actually tells congress to stay out of the religion issue. No laws about religion in any way. Read the words: Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion ….
Report Post »Max jones
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:00pmThe lady is correct. The Founders remembered the pilgrims…does any progressive anywhere?
Report Post »hunterx767
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 12:19amthe first ammendment point blank says we are not going to establish a national religion is it true a vast majority of the signers of the constitution were judeo christian yes , but they did not want to set christianty on such a pedastal cuase of what can happen look at the roman catholics church look at islam and country that has a national religion the goverment of it corrupts it . so the 1st ammendment protects both and keeps both in check
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 1:54amAmericans United for the Separation of Church and State could someone please tell these idiots that there is no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:05amjust so you guys can read it
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.
NovRevolution
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:06amPoor Thomas Jefferson, had he known that a letter he wrote would one day lead to this type of movement to abolish churches…he’d have burned it before it was ever delivered. You are correct, it is NOT in the constitution or any other Federal Document…it is a theory that has been forced on the American public as fact…theoretically the Constitution was intended to separate church and state..that’s the argument the left and religious hating groups use…much like the THEORY of evolution has now somehow become FACT…although by the definition of theory it is UNPROVEN. But I digress…the idea that military Christians can not join together to celebrate their faith and share it with those who FREELY choose to attend is absurd. The military is not FORCING any member of the military to attend Rock the Fort…THAT would be a violation of their rights….making the service available to them is not a violation..it is a chance for them to exercise their God given, Constitutionally protected FREE WILL. I pray to the God I believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior that we NEVER have to give up our right to a Free will decision.
charli911
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:57ambut, i’d bet if this was a mosque wanting to have an event on post, that they wouldn’t have any issue with it whatsoever, since that is the group that is being catered to these days ! They‘d likely celebrate and want everyone to be forced to attend in an effort to ’understand islam’
1911
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 6:22amWe must do the same thing the progressives have done for the last 100yrs. They have said that false phrase of separation of church and state so much , that most people believe it is what the constitution says.(including politicians and judges) so we must point out at nauseam as you guys have just done that it does not say that , and what it really says and means , Also this nation was formed on Christian beliefs and the founders were not Deists but they where Christians. I feel we must do this over and over and loudly until the other phrase is gone once and for all. The schools wont do it so WE THE PEOPLE must teach the correct history to our children !
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:08amEver heard of the right to assemble?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:36amNo one wants to stop soldiers from worshiping however they would like. I never understand why, whenever an issue like this comes up, people go nutty about how it is the soldiers’ right to worship. That is not even the issue! The issue is whether a particular sect should be allowed to proselytize on U.S. Military property. The answer is, obviously, no.
And it says so right in the 1st Amendment! As we know, Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, which so many of you quoted accurately. But when the Constitution says you cannot make a particular law, it does not mean that you should go and do the thing anyway.
Clearly, this event represents a de facto establishment of a particular sect above others, not to mention the establishment of Christianity above all other religions. Obviously it would be impractical to attempt to hold concerts for every religion just to give them equal time, so the solution is to hold no concerts.
The Founders believed a lot of things, but our country was not founded on Christianity, and to say so is an insult to any who do not share your beliefs because it makes them less American. And no, Jefferson would not have torn up that letter–he was not a man to avoid controversy and I think your assumptions about him are rather self-serving. I’ll leave you all with the famous article from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli:
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Report Post »Signed by President John Adams.
dressseller
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:40amSo happy to read your comments here. It gets very discouraging reading these strories and realizing how successful the left has been in indoctrinating the American public with NON-FACTS such as the ‘separation of church and state’ issue. …As Glenn says.. people are waking up now.. I believe that the left’s collective head is spinning that we are teaching our children not to swallow their garbage any longer.
Keep spreading the Truth!!
Report Post »Stuck_in_CA
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:46amHence, the Tea Party Rebellion. Traditionalists/Conservatives are fed up with the minority Leftists leading the country to Hell. We’ve had enough! Silent no more brothers and sisters.
Report Post »We really do out number them. Keep Ephesians 6:12 in mind.
BreeZee
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:51amFamous letter written by John Wall, suggesting the divorce of liberals and conservatives.
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters,
We’ve stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know that we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and just will not ever agree on what’s right. So let’s just end it right now while we can do it on friendly terms. We can smile, shake hands, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and each go our own way.
So here’s a model separation agreement.
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a portion. That’s going to be the difficult part, but I’m sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate taste.
We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can have those. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. And since you hate guns and you hate war, we’ll take the firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. But you are going to be responsible for finding a biodiesel vehicle big enough to haul them around.
We’ll keep the capitalism, the greedy corporations, the pharmaceutical companies; we will keep Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have the homeless, the homeboys, the hippies and illegal aliens. We will keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, the greedy CEOS and all of the rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and we’ll let you have NBC and Hollywood.
You can be nice to Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer anybody that threatens us. You can have the peaceniks and the war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we will provide them with security. You won’t have to worry about it. We will keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley Maclaine. You can also have the UN, but we will no longer pay the bill.
We will keep the SUVs, the pickup trucks and the oversize luxury cars. You can have the compacts, the subcompacts and every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everybody healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors. We will continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. We will keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and the national anthem, and I am sure you will be happy to substitute in their place “Imagine,” “I’d like to teach the world to sing,” “Kumbaya” or “We are the world.”
We will practice trickle-down economics and you can give trickle-up poverty your best shot. And since it so offends you, we will keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots. And if you do not agree, just ignore. In the friendly spirit of parting, I’ll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in about 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J Wall
Law student and an American P.S. You can also have Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda
van
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:52amPUBLIUSPENCILMAN, exactly where does it say so in the First Amendment? I have read and re-read it and simply can’t find it!
Report Post »SgtBarrett
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 9:05amCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, (I wasn’t aware the army was able to pass laws…)
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (So the army cant stop this assembly according to the constitution…)
or abridging the freedom of speech, (The Americans United wants to silence the praises of soldiers…)
or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, (The AU folks wants to keep the Christian army people from assembling…)
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So it looks like the only issue here is that Christians are involved in assembling and they need to be put in their place… These AU people don’t realize how transparent they are do they?
Report Post »chasp126
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 9:53amYou are right! There is no provision in the Constitution only a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Minister stating that no co-op between the church and yhe govt. Speaker Pelosi and the Obama
Report Post »administration IS now doing!
RESTOREVALUES
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 10:13amNo one wants to stop soldiers from worshiping any way they want except the ACLU and publiuspencilman. Whenever I read an article similar to this it makes my blood boil. They are eating away at our freedoms one little bit at a time.
barbaraw62
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 10:23amThe Founders believed a lot of things, but our country was not founded on Christianity, and to say so is an insult to any who do not share your beliefs because it makes them less American. And no, Jefferson would not have torn up that letter–he was not a man to avoid controversy and I think your assumptions about him are rather self-serving. I’ll leave you all with the famous article from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli:
I’ll leave you with this…. We THE PEOPLE are sick of your telling us lies about the Founders of this country….. I am sick of your proselythizing for non-religion… I am sick of your religion PubliusPencilman, which is the non-religion thingy….. Your faith seems strong!!!
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 10:39amVan, I pointed out the clause in the 1st Amendment that is relevant. It’s called the Establishment Clause.
Barret, First of all, your reading of the “free exercise” clause is problematic, as it essentially invalidates the establishment clause just before it. To be clear, no one is attempting to limit the rights of soldiers to pray–bases have chaplains for this. This does not fall under the “free exercise” clause because the issue is not whether soldiers should be allowed to attend Christian rock concerts, but whether one open to the public should be held on government property and should be offically sanctioned by the military.
You are absolutely right that the military does not pass laws. The military also does not declare war. According to Art. 1, Section 8, Clause 11: “[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Does the War Powers Clause explicitely say that the military cannot declare war? No! But I think we can all agree that the clause puts the power to declare war under the purview of Congress, so if the military attempted to declare war anyway, that would be against the Constitution. My point is that the “Establishment Clause” works in the same way; while it prohibits Congress from passing a law establishing religion, it also by extention puts the question of establishing religion for the federal government under the purview of Congress. Therefore, if the military, as part of the federal government, were to act in a way that is tantamount to establishing a religion or a sect, it would be co-opting a power given explicitely to Congress. Therefore… say it with me… it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
This is a fun debate!
Report Post »mjzkwz
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 10:56amYou are right and I have often wondered if any of these “turkeys” have ever read the original. The key word is “ESTABLISHMENT” of religion, much as Henry VIII forced on the people because he wanted to get divorced and the church was against it. So he changed the religion to suit himself. It does not mean people cannot acknowledge their faith anywhere they choose. It means, rather, we have this right and the government CANNOT tell us how we must worship!!!
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 11:40amBarbaraW, why is it your assumption that I have no faith? Why are you assuming that I am prosletyzing for “non-faith”? You know nothing about me, so your assumptions are crap, and the garbage you are spewing is the worst kind of ignorance. Your personal attacks are pathetic, and I ask you not to speak on behalf of “We the People.”
MJZKWZ,
I agree that the “Establishment Clause” does not prevent people from “acknowledging” their faith. That is not the issue here, so please try to stay on topic. I would find it hard to believe that the only means you have of acknowledging your faith involves inviting the public to a Christian rock concert hosted by evangelicals on government property? The free “exercise clause” gives you many rights, but those rights do not come at the expense of the rest of the constitution–they certainly do not come at the expense of the preceeding “Establishment Clause,” which I think I read fairly convincingly a few posts up.
Constitutional debates are great, but let’s not be ahistorical. Let’s not forget that this was a document written by committee in a room full of lawyers and political elites.
Report Post »Solsta Lynn
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 12:09pmI think that this may be a preemptive move based on the incident earlier in the year. In this previous incident, those who did not go to the show were forced to work on cleaning the barracks while those who did, were not there to actually work on cleaning.
Report Post »Some would have seen this as a form of punishment for the soldiers who weren’t Christian. (Personally, I think that it was just an effort to keep those not involved busy.) However, I think you can understand their distress at the thought that this type of thing might happen again.
unionrockstar
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 12:23pmHere’s the most important part
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Report Post »promise84
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 12:26pmPubliusPencilman,
You are cherry picking your objection to suit your personal system of belief the same as you allege those who are disagreeing with you here are. It is commonplace on most military bases for there to be events, functions, activities, etc. that are not related to the mission of the military except in the objective to build morale, welfare, and provide recreation. These many functions are not and can not be all inclusive because of the reality of diversity. There is a consistent effort made to provide as many varied opportunities as are manageable to service members and their families.
Please acknowledge that your views are motivated by your personal system of belief; not for the benefit of others in this forum but for yourself. In order for any discussion to reach its maximum potential it needs to be based in truth. If any party to the discussion can not speak truth to themself first they can not have a meaningful contribution to the discussion and usually descend into contention. This is, of course, assuming that your objective is to discuss and not sow contention.
Report Post »darkurth2000
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 12:35pmAmen!
Report Post »MissionLiberty
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 12:47pmFirst, President (Commander in Chief) George Washington’s stated in his Farewell Address, September 19, 1796, that no one could be a true PATRIOT if he attempted to remove religion and morality from politial institutions. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to POLITICAL PROSPERITY, RELIGION and MORLITY are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”
Secondly, our 2nd President (Commander in Chief) John Adams addressed the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798 and told them, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by MORLITY and RELIGION. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a MORAL and RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Thirdly, John Hancock (you know, that guy who was President of the Continental Congress when they signed the Declaration of Independence and had the BIGGEST signature on the document) stated in his Inaugural Address as Governor of Massachusetts, November 2, 1780 that, “Sensible of the importance of CHRITIAN PIETY and VIRTUE to the order and happiness of a STATE, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. … Manners, by which not only the FREEDOM but the VERY EXISTENCE of the REPUBLICS are greatly affected, DEPEND much upon the PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF RELIGION.”
So, I believe it to be pretty clear, dare I say Self-Evident, that our Founding Fathers not only bleived in a public/poitical reliance on religion and morality – they preached it to their citizens AND their military directly!
Report Post »rossiemay
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 12:50pmHey BrainFart-Congress Shall Make No Laws Respecting an Establishment of Religion,NOR Deny the FREE PRACTICE there of***CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS***Daghhh!!!
Report Post »Kinnison
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 12:57pmUsing Jefferson’s letter as justification for taking separation of church and state to ridiculous extremes is ludicrous. Perhaps the same people and organizations who do so should be required to also publicize the historical fact that it was Thomas Jefferson, as president, who instituted weekly Protestant church services at the Capitol which he then attended every Sunday, and which continued for more than 100 years in that location after he left the Oval Office.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 1:17pmPromise84,
You accusation that I “cherry pick” seems to be grounded on the idea that I deny that “It is commonplace on most military bases for there to be events, functions, activities, etc. that are not related to the mission of the military except in the objective to build morale, welfare, and provide recreation.” I said no such thing. There are Chaplains and Rabbis and all kidns of religious figures employed by the United States military to cater to the soldiers’ right to a “free exercise” of religion. I am not denying this, nor do I have a problem with this. My problem is specifically with this “evangelical” event and it’s violation of the “Establishment Clause,” which places the question of established religion in the federal government exclusively under the purview of Congress (and, of course, prohibits it).
MissionLiberty,
Thank you for the quote. I always welcome real evidence in the conversation. However, your reading of these quotes are wrong. The first two quotes mention only “religion” in the most general sense–they do not even say “Christianity.” The contemporary event in question is not by any means so general, involving an evangelical organization and an evangelical speaker. Washington and Adams were smart men, and if they wanted to be more specific, they would have been. They also say nothing of the government’s involvement in religion, and their comments go no further than the does the “free exercise” clause, which does not contradict the clause before it.
The John Hancock quote is clearer, but it is notably from 1780, eight years before Massachusetts even ratified the Constitution, so he is not addressing anything in that document. If he was refering to any law, he would be talking about STATE law, which is not relevant here. In the colonial period and early in the Republic, many colonies/states had “established” religions, the federal government never has, and never will unless the 1st Amendment is overthrown.
Regarding their beliefs, look at my post above which quotes from Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams. Even if Hancock provides some support for your assertion, one Boston merchant does not “The Founding Fathers” make, and none of these quotations are relevant to this contemporary issue or to the 1st Amendment. So what exactly is so self-evident about these passages?
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 1:32pmPubliusPencilman;
Report Post »Your intelligence is evident to say the least; however, I still need further clarification.
If I understand you correctly; you are basically implying that the reverse of the 1st Amendment is in play.
And then you say that just because a law has not been past prohibiting an event doesn’t necessarily mean it is allowable. Maybe not by God but try arresting someone for doing something that isn’t ethical. If this isn’t correct so far; please correct me.
1. The group will not attempt to establish (“To originate and secure the permanent existence of”) anything.
2. You mentioned that the group would be; in the reverse, implementing a de facto (existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not) establishment.
OK; in plain English – The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion or sect (according to the about definition they are not doing that). Then you used the word de facto for explaining that the group cannot to the reverse. From that I get the impression that the group is correct factually and no law exists that would prohibit them from gathering.
Then you leave us with a paragraph that simply says we cannot offend another religion by expressing ours. Does that refer to the other religion also?
You addressed the fact that the military doesn’t have the time to entertain the wishes of all religions; however, all religions are not evangelical so I am sure we could work those in if they expressed an interest to evangelize. After all we go out of our way (especially in the White House) to insure their most absurd wishes are granted.
Help me out.
Max jones
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 1:52pmTwo faced. hypocritical, and very insane…Nancy Pelosi stands before congress and exhorts pastors and preachers to push the health care bill from the PULPIT,, and then the progressives try to stop this event? On top of all that the IRS is threatening churches that advise on political issues that might be a bit more conservative than the liberal ideal…..
Report Post »I really don’t think we can save the republic from the clutches of the Nwo, but we can ,individually, accept Christ and his protection. Pray continually, cherish the Word…….max
moelarrycurly
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 1:55pmOh Pubispencilman…here you are again. Good to see you and its nice to see someone with your kind of determination-even if misinformed and misguided.
“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.”
There is a reason that the founders made this so simple-It’s for people like you. It’s simple-easy to understand, and if you like I can send it to you in large print with the words spelled phonetically. You notice what it doesn’t say? Anything resembling your opinion of what it meant. What upsets me is that you are promoting a false belief that ‘the separation of church and state’ is anywhere in the Constitution.. And it was widely recognized by authorities of the Constitution that the ‘letter’ Jefferson wrote to the Baptist was to assuage their worries about government interfering in how they worship. The letter was meant to assure them that the government would not interfere with them-not the other way around. And your reference to John Adams letter-irrelevant and out of context to the argument at hand. I don’t need to argue that one-please refer to an authority on the Constitution-and not one from move on dot org or your libby friends at media matters. The service men who are attending are not on government time-not that it should matter. They are not being ordered to go. They are attending of their own free will. If anyone in this nation should not suffer interference to the right to worship, celebrate or choose to attend a concert-religious or otherwise, it should be the men and women of our military. They fight to preserve that tiny little paragraph in the Constitution.
Report Post »The founding fathers were intelligent, thoughtful men, who had suffered at the hands of tyranny. I’m sure that if they had meant anything other than “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”-they would have said so. If they had meant to add to or take away from that very simple sentence (like: ‘except if your in the military, or except on government property, except to be ministered by certain religions)-They would have done so. And all you offer is mere speculation which has been debated before-of which your point is weak to say the least (As stated by the experts). Also note that that free speech is not to be abridged either. Had they meant to abridge it in any way they could have said: ‘except if your a preacher talking to government employees, or except if your a church honoring Americas’ military. But they didn’t.
Your opinion of the Constitution and what it means shows how intolerant you libby’s really are. you cannot tolerate anyone of religion or spirituality speaking freely or teaching their belief to those who freely listen and to whom they want even if it is with the enthusiastic consent of who they are addressing. Your view supports tyranny and it will not stand.
ProgressivesLoveAmerica
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 1:56pmThis is aweful. It constitutes nothing more than a de facto establishment of religion by the state. Evangelicals are well known to explicitly state their hatred for other Christian denominations, most notably Catholicism, which Evangelicals denounce as “The Whore of Babylon.”
It‘s worth noting that the Evangelical Christianity of today’s America is a VERY NEW phenomenon in Christianity’s history. In terms of Christian history, today’s Evangelicals in America can trace their roots back to the Azusa Street Revival of April 14, 1906. It‘s a religious denomination that’s only 104 years old!!! The Protestant Reformation was about RATIONALISM. Today, the only RATIONAL Christian denominations are the Mainline Protestants, the Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Founding Fathers would be HORRIFIED to find out what Christianity had mutated into in the Evangelical permutation of today.
Modern American Evangelical Christianity (the kind that constantly thinks the end of the world is going to happen in 5 years, reads the whole bible literally, and believes in “the rapture”) is only about 106 years old. In terms of its roots, modern Evangelicalism CAN be traced to about the 1800s, but THAT is mostly in what today is called the United Kingdom with Edward Irving & John Nelson Darby. Today’s Evangelicals, most notably Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsey, basically MAKE it up as they go along.
The Founding Fathers were very interested in interfaith DIALOGUE & MUTUAL RESPECT! They thought this was important because they remember very vividly the sectarian civil wars that plagued England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland where they were originally from. The UK still struggles with these issues with the Irish Republican Army. So the Founding Fathers believed that interfaith dialogue and MUTUAL RESPECT was much more constructive than allowing sectarian warfare to plague the Republic. That’s WHY we have separation of church & state.
Report Post »moelarrycurly
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:02pmAlso Pubis…If the other religions want to invite our servicemen to a concert or an event and they are on their own time-and they want to go. Then they should be allowed to go without interference from people like you. Saying that the solution is to have no concert or event at all is ridiculous. The fact that you offering a solution when their actually is no problem says more about you than it does about the ministers who organize this event and the servicemen and their families who freely attend. give it a rest. Don’t you guys have any days off over there at media matters?
Report Post »CatB
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:04pmRight on PSYCHOSIS … and what about Obama telling clergy to go push Obamacare in their ministries? Why isn’t that being stopped … if they can’t have a concert surely that is WRONG also!
What if it were a Muslim event … would they be objecting to that?
Report Post »ProgressivesLoveAmerica
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:14pmFor anybody defending the Evangelicals on this one, I’d like to point out the “Christian Flag” that Evangelicals are constantly waving around:
The Christian Flag is a flag designed in the early 20th century to represent all of Christianity (see also Christendom), but it has been adopted mainly by PROTESTANT Evangelical churches in North America, Africa and Latin America. The flag has a white field, with a red Latin cross inside a blue canton. The shade of red on the cross is SUPPOSED to symbolize the blood Jesus shed on Calvary, the blue is SUPPOSED to represent Jesus’ title of King of Kings, and the white is SUPPOSED to represent Jesus’ purity.
When you LOOK at it, the flag almost resembles the Anglican/Episcopalian Flag: The Church of England. This is something that the Founding Fathers might have been uncomfortable with. It is clearly the intention of Evangelicals to establish a state-religion. That’s what the Founding Fathers did NOT want because they knew what happens next: Sectarian civil war!
It’ll be the Catholics against the Evangelicals, the Atheists against everybody, Muslims against Evangelicals, etc…Look at the United Kingdom and the Irish Republican Army today!
Report Post »CultureWarriors
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:17pmIt‘s just a figment of a liberal’s imagination. It shows how truly ignorant they are. This is why they should not be allowed to teach. Why would we want someone who doesn’t teach fact, teaching our children?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UtmTALMkU4
Report Post »Mr.Nick
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:19pm@ProgressivesLoveAmerica
You have absolutely no substance of the myth of “separation of church and state” beyond the fact you just really dont like Christians.
Its extremely simple – Congress cannot pass any law recognizing an official state religion nor can congress pass a law restricting religion.
Do you not understand this???
A bunch of solders partaking in a Christian event is NOT a violation of the First Amendment, and as a matter of fact – preventing their First Amendment RIGHT of freedom of religion, worship, assembly and speech IS a violation of their First Amendment rights….
Those wishing to stop this event are the ones that are actually VIOLATING the First Amendment.
I think you progressives have a hard time understanding INDIVIDUALISM and what it means because you progressives have a bad habit of viewing everyone as members of a GROUP, like in this case the progressives are wrongly viewing our solders as the federal government and NOT the individuals they actually are.
Report Post »promise84
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:27pmPubliusPencilman,
Report Post »I used the term ‘cherry picking’ because you are unclear on what the basis of what your issue is. On one hand you explain your objection as being based on the ‘evangelical’ sponsorship of the event. On the other you seem to object over an organized ‘religious’ event, seeming to equate it to a formal worship service with the implication that the military is being used to proselytize to the service members. Some people might characterize the performance as a ‘show’ or ‘entertainment’ of a particular genre. As unionrockstar pointed out: there is no intent to ‘establish’ a religious institution on the base. If the analysis of this issue, or any issue, is extended to include the intents and motivations of secondary and tertiary or further associates of the primary groups or individuals involved then there are greater concerns you should concentrate on such as the individuals and organizations influencing policy in the government. To be clear on that last statement: I refer to all political organizations. Republican, Democrat or any other organization that holds office or authority.
Resolved
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:42pmCorrect me if I’m wrong, but Art 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli was intended not to separate America from its Christian Foundation, but to establish that America is not a Christian nation in the sense that we would wage holy wars to spread it. We’re not like England and Spain, which killed in the name of Christianity in the colonial days. But make no mistake, we are a nation founded upon Christianity and it’s principles. If you disagree, check this out, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E
Report Post »ProgressivesLoveAmerica
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:49pmMR.NICK, first of all, I am a Christian so that means I really have no problem with Christians themselves. I do, however, have a problem when my country seems to consistently favor ONE denomination of Christianity and ONLY ONE denomination. Separation of Church and state means exactly what you detailed: “Congress cannot pass any law recognizing an official state religion nor can congress pass a law restricting religion.”
Of Course I understand this! However, the fact of the matter is that there are ways people can sneak their way around this Constitutional provision by simply making sure that Congress has passed any law restricting or recognizing an official state religion. What about the term “DE FACTO” do YOU not understand?
De facto is a Latin expression that means “by the fact”. In law, it is meant to mean “in practice but not necessarily ordained by law” or “in practice or actuality, but without being officially established”.
You are correct when you say “A bunch of solders partaking in a Christian event is NOT a violation of the First Amendment.” However, you forgot to point out who the actual violators of the First amendment are in this case: It’s the Army officials who APPROVED of the concert.
Making sure the concert does not happen is not a violation of the soldiers’ right to worship. The Army is a government institution. It should not be endorsing any religion. However, Evangelical proselytizing is a problem that is VERY PERVASIVE in the military. It’s to the point now that non-Evangelicals are being harassed in the military. I should know. I come from a Catholic family & have family members in the military. Evangelicals do not like Catholics!!!
I think I’m the one actually defending individual liberty on this one: I’m simply expressing the fact that there happen to be MORE than ONE Christian denomination in existence in this country.
Report Post »Leopold
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 2:51pmHi everybody I am new here for comments. I am from Germany living in Canada. I love Americans and your constitution, thanks to Glenn Beck’s teachings watching you at 8/28. I am very angry at what is happening in your country. I think “my head would exploed” or “blood shooting out of my eyes”. I have a question. How come Obama can hold a Ramadan dinner at the White House?
Report Post »promise84
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 3:00pmProgressivesLoveAmerica,
Report Post »Your premise is that individuals are not able to make their own determination as to whether or not they agree with or choose to support an individual or group that is attempting to recruit or coopt them. If the evangelicals are ‘openly’ trying to assert their views in order to direct people into supporting their agenda is that any different from the current administration doing the same? Are we not also free to make the choice to support or oppose them? Are you advocating that freedom should be denied due to gullibility or ignorance?
This is why everyone needs to engage others in the voting process. Malice can only gain hold in a vacuum. We all need to be guards of liberty, freedom, and truth.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 3:20pmUnionRockStar,
I would be more than happy to try to explain. You said: “you are basically implying that the reverse of the 1st Amendment is in play. And then you say that just because a law has not been past prohibiting an event doesn’t necessarily mean it is allowable.”
No. I think the trouble here is your use of the term “reverse,” which I did not use and which really confuses the situation. My point is that the 1st Amendment, by saying “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” IS NOT saying that any other government entity can feel free to establish a religion for the federal government. If you read it that way, then the same thing would apply for the “Free Exercise” clause, which also falls under the phrase “Congress shall make no law…” No reasonable person, to my knowledge, suggests that only Congress cannot abridge the free exercise of religion, and that the Executive branch or the military or any other part of the federal government can feel free to do so whenever it wants. The same goes for the other rights that “Congress shall make no law” abridging: freedom of speech, press, etc. To read one clause one way and another a completely different way makes absolutely no sense.
Now, if you want to argue that this event does not “establish” a religious practice, then that is a whole nother kettle of fish. I would ask you, however, where you got your definition of “Establish,” since definitions are so important here. Note that the Amendment says “make no law respecting AN establishment of religion,“ not ”THE establishment of religion.“ The indefinite article suggests the possibility of multiple ”establishments,” perhaps of individual practices. This points to the weaker, but equally valid definition of “Establish”: “To strengthen by material support; To ratify, confirm, validate” (Oxford English Dictionary; these definitions are confirmed to have been in use during the 1780s). In this case, it seems that this event undoubtedly “Establishes” evangelical chrisitian practices on government property. What is particular about this case is that the event is open to the public, meaning the public will literally go to the base to worship–government property literally becomes a sanctioned “place of worship,“ or even a ”church” depending on your definition of that institution. Therefore, it seems to me the violation of the Establishment clause is clear.
I hope that clears things up! I think we can all agree that a Saturday afternoon spent debating the Constitution is a Saturday afternoon well spent!
Report Post »ProgressivesLoveAmerica
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 3:25pmPROMISE84, excuse me, but I made no such “premise” to the effect that “individuals are not able to make their own determination as to whether or not they agree with or choose to support an individual or group that is attempting to recruit or coopt them.”
I like your question, “If the evangelicals are ‘openly’ trying to assert their views in order to direct people into supporting their agenda is that any different from the current administration doing the same?”
The answer, simply put, is “NO” they are not the same. The current administration, like all administrations before it simply acts like any political machine. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are very close to having their views on Christianity codified into law and official recognition. This Fort Bragg concert is just another example. What if there was an Episcopalian, a Methodist, a Lutheran, or a Catholic concert? These denominations aren’t usually preoccupied with such overt destruction of the First Amendment.
Of course people are free to go the concert or not go, but that’s not the point. The point is that the Army officials who approved of the concert violated the Constitution. The way you put it, you‘re acting as if I’m advocating the suppression freedom. The truth is that this concert actually VIOLATES freedom because it is a function of a government entity that has violated the First Amendment by showing favor to one particular Christian denomination!
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 3:30pmMoeLarryCurly,
Report Post »If you are not going to add anything substantive to the conversation, then please sit down. Your post adds up to a bunch of vague assertions that “everyone knows.” Entirely unconvincing. But really, feel free to ask any Supreme Court Justice how “simple” the Constitution is. Your argument is neither historical nor literal nor based on any kind of interpretation–it’s based on the “virtue” of not thinking too hard, and that’s just sad. There are others here on your side that are making very interesting and intelligent comments,so I ask you to get out of there way and stop wasting our time.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 3:42pmRESOLVED,
I am glad you brought that up, because I think Article 11 is an extremely interesting document. To me, the phrase: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” seems pretty conclusive. While the purpose of the article in the treaty is to demonstrate that the US has no impulse to “crusade,” the premise of this claim is contained in the phrase above, which is stated unequivocably.
And by the way MoeLarryCurly,
“it was widely recognized by authorities of the Constitution that the ‘letter’ Jefferson wrote to the Baptist was to assuage their worries about government interfering in how they worship.”
I have never heard any respected historian argue this–this is a silly theory by David Barton that has absolutely no support. The fact is, Jefferson used the image of a “WALL of separation between Church & State.” I don‘t know what walls you’ve encountered in your life, but walls typically block movement from both directions. Jefferson was a very smart guy, so if he didn’t mean “wall,“ he would not have said ”wall.”
Report Post »Mr.Nick
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 4:09pm@ProgressivesLoveAmerica
I cant help the fact that Christianity makes up 80% + of the religious population and which “denomination” is this even pandering to?
Not that your post had anything to do with our First Amendment and everything to do with YOUR opinion on religion.
Sorry to tell you your opinion on religion means absolutely nothing in the face of the First Amendment.
Furthermore, in what universe are our service members that are non-Christian restricted from or prohibited from celebrating their religion or worshiping their region in a fashion such as this?
No one is stopping other religions from having a festival..
I think the problem you have is the FACT that the religious “makeup” of our US military as a whole is not even remotely “equal” and anything not “equal” to a liberal is automatically biased by DE FACTO.
We are a nation of ALL denominations of Christianity and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the fact that 80+ percent of our military is Christian….
I must say I am really getting tired of you liberals viewing “majorities” as “evil entities.”
Report Post »van
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 4:15pmYes it is fun, but I still don’t see anywhere “Separation of Church and State”. And as far as I know this gathering is not the Congress making a Law.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 4:36pm“as far as I know this gathering is not the Congress making a Law.”
Report Post »Right, but if the military independently moved to shut down a civilian newspaper because it didn’t like the coverage it was getting, we would likely call that a violation of the Freedom of the Press, even though it does not involve “Congress making a law.” The Freedom of the Press and the Establishment Clause are subject to the exact same grammar, so it would make sense to read them the same way.
promise84
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 4:48pmPubliusPencilman,
Report Post »Yes, debating the constitution is indeed a worthy use of time. Unfortunately the hard question is (and I address this also to ProgressivesLoveAmerica): Who is to decide where the line is drawn between allowing chaplains and worship services in the military and allowing an evangelical? The debate of this nature is precisely what was intended at the formation of the country because of the ever changing world. The debate was intended to bring us back to our center values lest we forget what the driving cause behind the Revolution was. It is the sad, repetition of history that societies and governments degenerate into corruption and failure with a horrible loss of life in the process. The truth behind the assertion that socialism has never succeeded is that neither has any other form of government. How they should be wieghed though is in which form of government has produced the most benefit to mankind and what was the common reason for that success. This is where successful societies, their freedom, and God are inextricably connected. When societies and governments are established where they are not contrary to the will of God they prosper. It is when ‘reasonable’ men meddle with the good (charity) in others hearts that the destruction begins.
Should we all take caution and be watchful when there is an event such as this concert is performed? Yes. Should it be allowed on the military base? Perhaps not. Especially if there was a suitable alternative venue. If it is allowed, it should be done with exhaustive vetting and clear rules and guidelines should be agreed to (in writing) prior to permission being granted. An event of this general nature can be allowable under the constitution so long as it does not compromise the rights and freedoms of anyone. This is the same basic argument behind regulations in business or any other aspect of governance. Do we need laws and regulations for every situation that can be imagined to keep people from violating the freedom of others or do we allow poeple to decide which things they will withdraw their support from and thereby causing it to wither and cease? The judicial system was set up to provide the people with the ability to determine the particulars and intents of violations through the jury process. The argument for regulations was to ‘streamline’ and expedite resolution of clear violations when all it actually accomplished was to clog the system with red tape. This is much the same as this debate over ‘if’ or ‘where’ a faith based event should or should not be held. Similar (roughly) to the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ issue, can it be done? Technically, yes. Remember there are chaplains in the military and religious services can be (and are) held on bases.
ProgressivesLoveAmerica
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 4:52pmMR.NICK, did I say I had a problem with the fact that Christians make up 80+ % of the religious community in this nation? Absolutely not! You have a problem! You like to put words in my mouth that I never said.
Actually, my post had EVERYTHING to do with the First Amendment. It’s pretty simple: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The DE FACTO reality is that, when you have Army officials approving of a concert held by ONE Christian denomination, you have a government agency basically approving the establishment of that one denomination. Although no law was made, the DE FACTO reality is that the official religious denomination in the military tends to be of an Evangelical persuasion as opposed to say an Anglican or Lutheran variety. This has NOTHING to do with my personal opinion. Evangelical proselytizing in the military is a senstive issue. These are real life facts.
Non-Evangelical service members tend to face harassment. There is a LOT of pressure in the military on non-Evangelicals to convert to Evangelical Christianity right now. No laws are technically being violated here. Nobody created a law declaring that biblical literalist Evangelical Fundamentalist Christianity to be the official religion of the Armed Services, BUT that seems to be the de facto reality to anybody who has ever been in the military or investigated the issue.
My problem is that the military culture tends to encourage the harassment of non-Evangelicals.
I would LOVE to think that “We are a nation of ALL denominations of Christianity.” However, Evangelicals want to see something different. They want to be the only ones dominating Christendom and the United States, especially the military.
I agree that “there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the fact that 80+ percent of our military is Christian,” however I don’t think Christians in the military who are non-Evangelicals should be harassed or coerced into converting to Evangelicalism.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 5:21pmI’m much too involved in this debate–I don‘t think I’m going to get anythign else done today!
Anyway, Promise, I was with you until:
“This is where successful societies, their freedom, and God are inextricably connected. When societies and governments are established where they are not contrary to the will of God they prosper. It is when ‘reasonable’ men meddle with the good (charity) in others hearts that the destruction begins.”
If you are concerned with where to draw the line between chaplaincies and Christian Rock Concerts, I would think that it is a far more problematic question of who is to determines what is “God’s Will.” I think it goes without saying that many people have very different interpretations/beliefs on this issue, and it would be unjust for ME to be governed based on YOUR interpretation of scripture (and vice-versa), no matter how certain you are of its truth. There ARE people whose job it is the answer the hard question of the line between “Establishment” and “Free Exercise”; they are judges, and judges do not rule based on God’s Will.
This issue is by no means the same as the Mosque issue, since the Mosque is to be built on private property, and very very few people are making the case that the Mosque should not be built on Constitutional grounds.
Report Post »BlueStrat
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 5:24pmEven more to the point, the separation of church & state Jefferson was talking about concerned the state infiltrating and co-opting the church to serve the ends of the state, NOT the church co-opting the state to form some kind of theocracy. For examples, see what Hitler did to the churches in Germany in turning them into organs of the Reich.
Strat
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 6:10pmSo here’s a little “heads up” for those who have/had a problem with “Rock the Fort” – DON’T GO!!!!! Mind what goes on in your own pathetic world and leave the rest of us alone.
Report Post »Sicboy
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 6:31pmAt this rate, I think everything except sharia law will violate the Constitution. Lord, please don’t wait any longer. Come down and destroy these doers of evil.
Report Post »promise84
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 7:10pmPubliusPencilman,
Report Post »I apologize for my lack of communication skill. I have obviously not conveyed my ideas effectively in my effort to be as brief, yet concise, as possible without going on and on. I erroneously expected (as you somewhat pointed out) that you would follow the underlying idea of individual determination behind my point of view. The will of God is not determined for you or anyone else based upon another persons interpretation of scripture. There are basics that are not open to interpretation; such as: respect one another, or do no evil, etc. The finer points of liberty and association are between the individual and God. I do not expect anyone to be governed by another persons interpretation of scripture. I simply want others to reciprocate this respect. The basic principles of respecting one another and doing no evil are universal enough to societal function that belief or unbelief are irrelevant. The same can be said for freedom. It should be that in this country those who wish to establish a socialistc association on a local or group level are free to do so and enjoy the benefits or hardships that come from it. To impose their belief that all people should be governed by that same system is to deny freedom to others and that is where, speaking for myself, the line is drawn. It seems that just about every aspect of individual liberty is up for debate these days and this issue of a religious concert is a microcosm of what is dividing people in this land. My reference to the Mosque, which I refered to as ‘rough’, was intended to illustrate the way some people are trying to impose their concept of right and wrong on others based upon a faulty understanding of the concept of the freedom we are supposed to enjoy in this great nation. The truth will prevail.
Mr.Nick
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 7:48pm@ProgressivesLoveAmerica
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 4:52pm
“MR.NICK, did I say I had a problem with the fact that Christians make up 80+ % of the religious community in this nation? Absolutely not! You have a problem! You like to put words in my mouth that I never said”
I think my point(s) go over your head.
Quit viewing individuals as members of “groups” and realize that our federal government does not grant individuals rights, but rather, God grants individuals rights.
Only our federal/state governments can violate the religion aspect of our First Amendment by establishing a theocracy, and anything other than that is within the context of the First Amendment of the US constitution.
Not that it matters but, individuals are NOT the property of the federal government – they may makeup our federal government, however they are NOT the federal government…
I think you really need to realize what an individual actually is and what crucial role individualism plays in our founding fathers vision of the US.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 7:49pmEloquently put!
Report Post »Wandavid
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 8:36pmOne of these days…they may learn that if they keep pushing the seperation of C/S down or throat we are going to throw up all inside the voting booth. And we will keep it up till no one is left to feed us that mess.
It is amazing to me that this type of concert can upset so many people…no drinking, no drugs, no cursing, etc. But if some HeavyMetal group wanted to play with Satanic overtones…there would be no one speaking up but Christians. And then we would be laughed at for even suggesting that it should be stopped. Made fun of by every TV host out there.
So I wonder…if the concert goes through with success…will John Stewart and side kick clone Stephen Colbert try to host a concert just to prove that the are more popular than Jesus? I’m sure they will!!!
Report Post »MCGIRV
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 10:53pmRight on!
Report Post »anthony0713
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 10:56pmGee, I think the left didn’t have a problem with a public school taking a trip to a mosque. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-UTGkdB5uU
Last time I checked, that was a religion too. If that school had taken these kids to a Chirstian or Catholic Church we would have never heard the end of the ‘separation of church and state’ stuff.
Report Post »ProgressivesAreEvil
Posted on September 25, 2010 at 11:09pmAs long as the military does not bar any other religious group from having a concert this is a non issue.
Having a concert is hardly “establishment” of the religion, and to leap to that conclusion shows more about the accusers motives than the religious groups.
I do recall a story about Jefferson allowing different religious sects use a govt. building to hold mass because of their lack of a place to worship, and as long as all the sects could be accommodated it was not in violation of the law.
Report Post »glassbeadlady
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 12:10amI pray the event went on as planned, sounded wonderful.
Report Post »Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places
Alan Kellogg
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 12:44amLet me see if I understand your objection, because there is nothing in the constitution that specifically separates church and state, therefor there can be no separation of church and state. Or have I got you wrong?
Okay, I believe the pertinent part here is the first clause in the 1st Amendment which states baldly that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. In other words, no state religion. It is not the role of government to support any faith, but rather to remain neutral on the matter of faith. It is not up to Congress to tell you which religion you should follow, that is entirely your business. That, Mr. Psychosis, is where the separation of church and state comes in.
The state has no business telling you which church you should go to. Or, for that matter, which churches you should avoid. Be you led to attend one particular house of worship that is your business, and government authorities have nothing to say about it.
To put it another way, religion is none of government’s business, and should never be any of government’s business. Where you worship, how you worship, even why you worship is up to you and any government agency or official who tries telling you where, how, or even why can take a long walk off a short pier.
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 12:55amThere is a direct link between this group and the ACLU. Does it show?
Report Post »prayerwarrior
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 1:07amPROGRESSIVESLOVEAMERICA: I assume you didn’t actually attend “Rock The Fort” to see what all the fuss was about! I spent the day at “Rock The Fort” with my family on Ft. Bragg. I just wanted to let you know that there were representatives from many denominations out there today. All kinds of churches had tents set up and they handed out reading material to anyone who came in and showed interest. No one pushed their beliefs on anyone. If someone had questions they would speak with them. It was all very friendly and fun. I don’t remember all of the denominations that were represented, but I do know that the church I attend was there (Spout Springs Church, which is Southern Baptist), and I browsed through the tent of a Catholic Church and a Methodist Church (I don’t recall the specific names of the churches.)
Report Post »ron the veteran
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 1:12amgo read this and then tell me christians are not under attack
Report Post »http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=206561
the aclu wants christianity made illegal go read it your self
Chalk Eating Weasel
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 8:50amThank you for being so helpful. Perhaps you could inform us exactly which law Congress enacted for this event to take place.
Report Post »killray
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 9:19amhigh 5 man… you get a bro hug
Report Post »Bake
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 11:53amPUBLIUSPENCILMAN-
Report Post »If your going to quote John Adams don’t take something out of context. John Adams was one of only two Founders to sign the Bill of Rights and he explained: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. As the French observer Alexis de Tocqueville said in his work “Democracy in America”, “There is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.”
Christians were involved with every aspect of life in the founding of our nation. Read the true history of the beginnings of the nation and give in to the fact that this Nation was founed on Judeo Christian principles regardless of what our new president, and you, think
kikibird
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 3:34pmI’ve been told that there is some sort of prayer room set aside in the pentagon for muslims. If that’s true, then I would consider this the government supporting and promoting a certain religion. So where is this group for the separation of church and state???? Why aren’t they swooping down on the pentagon to stop this practice???? If Christians can’t practice their faith out in the open, then those muslims shouldn’t be able to either. And since the islam “religion” is a “religion” of peace, then they should go quietly into the night and disappear. But islam is a violent cult and probably threatens everyone they come in contact with so they can get their own way.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 26, 2010 at 4:42pmBake,
I am not sure exactly what you are talking about. What did I take out of context? I think that you did not read the posts above, because your quote from Adams was already discussed, so none of this is a surprise. Take notice that Adams is not saying anything about the role of government in religion, or vice-versa. Notice too that he does not even specify Christianity (which I am sure he could if he wanted to)! No one is suggesting that we should jettison religion from American life, so I am not sure how this quote applies to your point.
Thanks for the primer on de Tocqueville! Fortunately, I have my trusty copy of “Democracy in America” right here (Trans. George Lawrence). Have you read it? If you have, you might have noticed in Volume I, Part II, Chapter 9, under the heading “The Main Causes That Make Religion Powerful in America,” this particularly informative quote. Here, de Tocqueville is wondering how religion does not run contrary to freedom in America, as it does in France:
“As a practicing Catholic I was particularly close to the [American] Catholic priests, with some of whom I soon established a certain intimacy. I expressed my astonishment and revealed my doubts to each of them; I found that they all agreed with each other except about details; all thought that the main reason for the quiet sway [also trans. as "peaceful dominion"] of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that.”
I’ve seen a few translations, and all render this quote more or less the same. The original French for “peaceful sway” is “l’empire paisible,“ and ”complete separation of Church and State” is pretty self explanatory: “la complete separation de l‘Eglise et de l’Etat.” The original French here is taken from a facsimile of the 1848 edition.
And that, my friend, is how you work with context. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for lobbing a nice fat one over the plate.
Report Post »