Comments on: Tea Party Quiz Answers http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/09/12/tea-party-quiz-answers Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:31:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Mel Morganstein http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/09/12/tea-party-quiz-answers#comment-514 Mel Morganstein Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:22:40 +0000 http://www.thirstyquill.com/?p=1131#comment-514 If the First Amendment proscribes the establishment of a state religion, why are the Secularists being allowed--ENCOURAGED--to impose THEIR religious belief system on all of us in the public domain? And if the state cannot pass any law interfering with "...the free exercise thereof..." of religion, why are government entities being encouraged and even FORCED to interfere with the free exercise of religion (Unless the religion is Islam, of course) (I got 3 wrong on your test, and it was completed BEFORE the discussion last Monday where some of the answers came up!) If the First Amendment proscribes the establishment of a state religion, why are the Secularists being allowed–ENCOURAGED–to impose THEIR religious belief system on all of us in the public domain?
And if the state cannot pass any law interfering with “…the free exercise thereof…” of religion, why are government entities being encouraged and even FORCED to interfere with the free exercise of religion (Unless the religion is Islam, of course)
(I got 3 wrong on your test, and it was completed BEFORE the discussion last Monday where some of the answers came up!)

]]> By: Doug Indeap http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/09/12/tea-party-quiz-answers#comment-499 Doug Indeap Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:51:44 +0000 http://www.thirstyquill.com/?p=1131#comment-499 The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the no-establishment-of-religion and free-exercise-of-religion clauses of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test-for-public-office clause of the Constitution. The absence of the phrase in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression the words appeared there and later learned of their mistake. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is inconsequential--no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles. The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot. The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the no-establishment-of-religion and free-exercise-of-religion clauses of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test-for-public-office clause of the Constitution. The absence of the phrase in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression the words appeared there and later learned of their mistake. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is inconsequential–no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion.

Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.

]]>