[Vision2020] Separation Of Church & State

[Saundra Lund]

Kai (in part) wrote:
"The law simply removes the government from establishing or favoring one
religion over the other. Nothing more nothing less."

OK, how about a hypothetical:

University X is publicly owned and has property that it rents out.  For the
sake of this hypothetical, let's confine our discussion to the cost of
renting the facility *only* -- no set-up, break-down, equipment, personnel,
etc., etc., etc:  just what it costs to rent the room or building or
whatever.

Church A wants to rent the facility and gets a rental rate of . . . oh,
let's say . . . $750 for a 20-hour day.

Church B wants to rent the same facility and gets a rental rate of . . . oh,
let's say . . . $1500 for a 16-hour day.

Do you see any problem with that hypothetical?  Is the rate differential
favoring one religion over the other?


Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
Edmund Burke


-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Kai Eiselein
Sent: Monday, 01 August 2005 10:30 AM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Separation Of Church & State

Bingo! And we have a winna!
To be more correct, Joan, that phrase came up in a letter to a minister who
was worried about the establishment of a state religion, as was the case in
England.
Jefferson reassured him, stating, and I'm paraphrasing here, that a
mechanism was in place to ensure a wall of separation between church and
state.
Now let us visit the article itself........
Article I:
"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."

Simply stated the Article forbids the government to impose a religion or to
ban the practice of any. It does not say that one can only practice one's
faith in private or on private property.
Anyone who says that allowing religous services on campus is a violation of
"separation of church and state" is full of hot air.
The U of I campus is publicly owned property, therefore, any religious group
may peacefuly assemble and publicly proclaim their faith. Or lack thereof,
or whatever.
What next? The banning of religous services on ALL public property? Many
cemetaries are public property, are religious graveside services going to be
banned at them? I think therewold be more than a little public outcry.
Whatever Jefferson's intent, the law of the land does not disallow the use
of public buldings or property for religious reasons. If a public building
can be rented by secular groups, then it can be rented by religious ones.
This "separation of church and state" phrase has been thrown about so much,
that the uninformed mistakenly assume that it is a law.
The law simply removes the government from establishing or favoring one
religion over the other. Nothing more nothing less.






Kai T. Eiselein
Editor
Latah Eagle
521 S. Jackson St.
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 882-0666 Fax (208) 882-0130
editor at lataheagle.com


_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯