When it comes to Religion, Faith is everything. It's what builds up religion with their beliefs/doctrines/rituals and the like. But when it comes to Faith, religion isn't everything. You have the right to choose whom/what/where you believe in. It really is up to you.

Regarding the Ammendment, I believe the "Faith" portrayed here does not actually establish religion. I think it's just bad habit.

__________________
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.

Yes, it's possible and I for one am an example. Technically, I'm Roman Catholic. I went to a Roman Catholic school, from its preparatory branch till the University. I was very interested in history and it led me to drift away from the Roman Catholic belief. I made my own interpretations and decided to go with my own beliefs. I guess you could say I'm a freethinker towards religion. I do not subject myself to religious gatherings anymore. I pray to God and the time and place does not matter to me, as long as I pray at my utmost sincerity.

I've had some friendly arguments with some of my peers who are part of another branch of Christianity. I shared my views and their response always starts with, "Because, in the bible..." I challenged their use of the bible and simply put, they said that if you're gonna part of a religion, you have to adhere to their teachings. In my view, that's just taking away free will. But hey, that's just me.

Bartimaeus,

Based on your statement, then would you say that the current prohibition of prayer in school, based on the grounds that it promotes religion is wrong?

If one can pray and not promote religion, then banning prayer because it promotes religion would be incorrect, wouldn't it?

For that matter, how about banning holiday displays on public property. Does a tree, a menorah, a kresh, etc. promote a religion or does it promote faith?

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Hi Jeff,

I appreciate these debates we're having. Although I only have time to reply to this at this time. Work's getting pretty crazy. Okay, for your first question, prayer doesn't promote religion in the first place. The intention of prayer is to have a spiritual connection or conversation with God. If you pray for the sake of image, I'd say that's wrong. That's already being insincere and it's a misuse of prayer. As for schools, I doubt the sincerity of almost everyone who's praying before a class. I experienced it myself. People are praying just for the sake of praying because they have to and the meaning of prayer is lost and hypocrisy can emanate.

As for the 2nd question, sorry. I'm a little confused. "then banning prayer because it promotes religion would be incorrect, wouldn't it?" I'm confused to the negatives. Did you mean, banning prayer because it promotes religion is correct?

Thirdly, to me, the spirit of the holidays overcomes other intentions. Holiday displays aren't intended for promotion but rather celebration. Some of my friends from other religions, particularly, I he's think a Jehovah's witness and they do not celebrate Christmas joins our gatherings in celebration of Christmas.

I emphasized sincerity because faith is more on the person. It's good to have others with you but it's more important not to lose sight of the your own beliefs. Sometimes, people lose their way and it becomes more the image than the faith.

Bartimaeus,

I too appreciate your input on these discussions.

I'll clarify my points.

Here in the United States, organized prayer in public schools is banned. A teacher cannot lead a prayer, neither can a student. Certainly nobody can prevent a student from praying silently, but a student is not allowed to lead a group prayer in the school. The reason used is that prayer in the school would violate a separation between church and state (specifically, it would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...". Apparently many believe that allowing organized student prayer establishes religion. My question was to ask, based on your prior statements, whether prayer establishes religion or in fact whether it has anything to do with religion (and instead has to do with faith). Since we've established that religion and faith are not the same, if we find that prayer is about faith, then it should not violate this part of the Constitution. I would further ask, since you said you are not from the United States, how your nation views this issue.

For the record, I wouldn't really support a Teacher or school led prayer because that falls into the realm of indoctrination. On the other hand, a student led prayer, especially in the context of each student having the opportunity to lead one over time, could expose many different beliefs to the students and raise open discussion of similarities and differences which would beneficial to the collective students.


As to my question about holidays. Again, in the United States, we find that many communities are being sued by special interest groups to take down holiday displays (especially dealing with Christmas and Easter, but in general all holiday displays for faith based holidays) on public property. Similar to the prayer issue above, the argument is that these displays promote or establish religion.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Hi Jeff,

Okay, I finally got what you were asking for. Didn't know about banned prayers in the US, which here, is almost the opposite. From my 1st grade to college years, I recalled that we have prayed in before and sometimes after classes. The government has no problem with it. People are free to practice their religion here and there hasn't been much conflicts that arise from religion.

But still, I reiterate my views. Prayer is prayer and it isn't intended to promote religion. Perhaps the problem here is the word "promote" which by our usage would fall into the definition of "To urge the adoption of; advocate; attempt to popularize by publicity; and to establish or organize." Looking at these definitions, prayer isn't intended for any of these. But ironically, prayers in groups would pose an image of promotion to religion.

As to your constitution, I'm a little confused as to the interpretation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF...". By this clause alone, can banning be allowed? I also remember some issues regarding majority and minority religions, as to why the majority population being Christians, being allowed practices while for example, Muslims, the wearing of their (scarfs?) or (toga?) not allowed. I also seem to recall, the 10 commandments that was placed on some building in Washington is being also asked to be brought down because it violates the separation of state and religion. Well, it's all very confusing to me, being that there are many conflicts and factors surrounding it, also with the prayer.

If asked what were my views, for example if I'm Muslim and I see a holiday sign, I would not let it affect me and understand that the country is inhabited by a majority of this religion. But, if it would already be discrimination because of religion, then it's a different thing. I'd say live and let live.

Interesting, isn't it, that a nation founded under the idea of freedom, especially freedom of religion, seems so little to understand that they are exercising anything but.

The freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment was created because many nations had a national religion. This national religion had the immediate effect of making other religions and their adherents somewhat lesser or even outcast (or in extreme cases, illegal). By founding a nation where there could be no national religion, the idea was that all religions could flourish.

In the United States, there are groups that feel that any public exercise of any religion will automatically disenfranchise those who don't follow that religion. They also have the idea that religion and faith are somehow equivalent, so that a symbol, such as the Ten Commandments, a Menorah, a Nativity Scene or even a Christmas Tree, somehow establishes religion and thus cannot be displayed in a public place. Specifically, they are referring to any governmentally owned area such as a town square, courthouse, etc. The theory goes that doing so means that the government is endorsing some religion (granted that if a government building displayed a symbol of Christianity, it might be seen as an endorsement of Christianity (a faith, not a religion), but if that same building displays symbols of many faiths, where is the endorsement?).

These groups are, in my view, misguided. In their attempt to remove religion from public discourse, they are in effect promoting the "faith" of atheism. I don't suggest for a moment that this is accidental. Rather, I believe that for many of these groups, promoting atheism is the intended goal, and they have used things such as prayer in schools as a foothold. The next foothold will be words such as "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the United States Flag, or the words "in God we Trust" on the United States currency. It is interesting to me to learn how people from other nations view this.

The example that you cited, the Ten Commandments, was one where it was decided that the presentation of the Ten Commandments, in a courthouse, somehow suggested that the courthouse would take into account these commandments in cases of law and might make a nonbeliever feel that the courthouse wouldn't treat him fairly. Of course they completely ignored the reality that the Ten Commandments, like so many other historical examples, are a symbol of the earliest recorded laws.

Yes, it is confusing. The United States is often that way.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Well, I think we could close it on this note. There are still many loopholes when it comes the law and the constitution, even in other countries.

As for atheism, I think we can say that it's being faithless. But I have faith in having faith and in the believers. Somehow, it's impossible to even conceive the idea of the earth having no religion. Promotion of atheism would be futile. I think the person is smart, as opposed to a mass of people caught in the flow. But as you said, misguided. Many of them are. Most of the time, it would just take one person to preach otherwise and start a following, e.g. Jesus.

As for the holiday signs and other symbols of religion, I think minorities should understand that on of the footholds in building US was also Christianity. I mean, what would be the point in banning signs? If it's not about them, they should not be affected. They have the courtesy of having religious establishments of their own. As I said, live and let live.