<HTML><BODY><DIV style='font-family: "Verdana"; font-size: 10pt;'><DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Kai</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"Anyone who says that allowing <SPAN class=correction id="">religious</SPAN> services on campus is a violation of<BR>"separation of church and state" is full of hot air.<BR>The U of I campus is publicly owned property, therefore, any religious group<BR>may <SPAN class=correction id="">peacefully</SPAN> assemble and publicly proclaim their faith. Or lack thereof,<BR>or whatever."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Really? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't think you are considering all the possibilities. Of course this subject hinges on how you define "proclaim their faith." If I announce with other believers in the square in front of the U of I <SPAN class=correction id="">library</SPAN> that we worship <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Gaia</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>, this is a very different example than officially renting the <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Kibbie</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> Dome for worship services with communion and wine by an organized church represented by a pastor, etc.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Consider the following examples (from a previous Vision2020 post on 7/29/05) I wrote showing how the U of I in renting the <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Kibbie</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> Dome to a religious group for worship by an organized religious church could be led into favorable treatment of one religion over another, and my discussion of religious worship on state or federal forest land, to address your concerns about religion on some kinds of public property. There are cases where religious expression on public property does not violate the separation of church and state. However, I think renting the <SPAN class=correction id="">Kibbie</SPAN> Dome for worship services does present valid concerns that this could lead to government favoring one religion over another.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ted wrote on 7/29/05:</DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=Arial>Anytime the government gets involved in religious worship, it is a potential threat to this principle, again I state, a potential slippery slope that could lead to the establishment of, or appearance of, government endorsed religion.<BR><BR>Let me give a few examples to illustrate what I mean:<BR><BR>The U of I allows Christ Church to conduct their religious services with communion at the U of I <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Kibbie</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> Dome.<BR><BR>Next up.... <BR><BR>The Aryan Nations, or some religious group of similar values, insist that the U of I rent the <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Kibbie</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> Dome to them to hold their religious services to be attended by thousands. Would the U of I comply based on a principle of nondiscrimination against any religion wishing to use governmental facilities? <BR><BR>You know very well the U of I would not comply in this example.<BR><BR>Is this not discrimination against a religion?<BR><BR>Should Native Americans be allowed to conduct peyote ceremonies using peyote in the <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Kibbie</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> Dome? <BR><BR>Can you imaging the public response if this happened? The U of I would never allow it!<BR><BR>What if Islamic fundamentalists requested to rent the <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Kibbie</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> Dome for a worship service attended by thousands aimed at denouncing <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Christianity's</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> war machine against the middle east? <BR><BR>How would the U of I approach the nondiscriminatory use of government facilities for religious worship in this example?<BR><BR>I don't need to answer that question.<BR><BR>And thus we would see the government drawn into giving favorable treatment to one religion, Christ <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Church's</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> form of Christianity, or some other religion or group of select religions, that could be substituted in this scenario, thus discriminating against some religions, which outlines why the government should not be in the business of religion at all!<BR><BR>The U of I allowing religious oriented student "clubs" is not the same type of event as the U of I allowing organized religious worship services by specific churches. Of course drawing a strict line between a "religious club" event and a worship service might be difficult, but I think communion with wine with a pastor who oversees a self declared organized religious church clearly crosses the line.<BR><BR>I would defend Christ <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Church's</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> right to worship on private property if I saw that the government was denying this right, despite whatever disagreements I have with their theology and values. I would in effect also be defending my right to worship how I see fit on private property!<BR><BR>As far as <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Wiccan's</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> worshiping on state or federal forest land, or Christ Church, for that matter, if no one knows what they are doing on federal forest land, the government is not giving official governmental approval for their religious activity. <BR><BR>I think, though, that you raise an interesting example with the <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Wiccan's</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> or any religion worshiping on state or federal forest land. The law is not always comprehensive or consistent in its applications to real world situations. I suspect a case like this would require somebody taking exception to the conduct you suggest, which might be rather unlikely given that people go into the woods often to get away from the monitoring of the government, or monitoring by anybody. So unless you gathered a crowd of constitutionally minded protectors of the separation of church and state to witness your worship in the woods, very few would care about the separation of church and state in this example. I doubt it would lead anyone to think the government was officially giving favorable treatment to one religion over another, unless some sort of official "government woods worship permit" were to come into legal reality pursued by numerous religions.<BR><BR>Then we might see a similar problem to the one I outlined in the above examples of different religious groups wanting to rent the <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Kibbie</SPAN></SPAN> Dome.<BR><BR>Ted <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Moffett</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><BR></DIV> <BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Kai</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Eiselein</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> <editor@lataheagle.com><BR>To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Sent: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:30:06 -0700<BR>Subject: [Vision2020] Separation Of Church & State<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
.AOLPlainTextBody {
margin: 0px;
font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;
font-size: 12px;
color: #000;
background-color: #fff;
}
.AOLPlainTextBody pre {
font-size: 9pt;
}
.AOLInlineAttachment {
margin: 10px;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader {
border-bottom: 2px solid #E9EAEB;
background: #F9F9F9;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader .Title {
font: 11px Tahoma;
font-weight: bold;
color: #666666;
background: #E9EAEB;
padding: 3px 0px 1px 10px;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldLabel {
font: 11px Tahoma;
font-weight: bold;
color: #666666;
padding: 1px 10px 1px 9px;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue {
font: 11px Tahoma;
color: #333333;
}
</STYLE>
<DIV class=AOLPlainTextBody id=AOLMsgPart_0_7afc732d-30f7-44a9-b99a-b79184cd776b><PRE><TT>Bingo! And we have a <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">winna</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>!
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 <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">peaceably</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> 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 <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">religous</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> 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 <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">peacefuly</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> assemble and publicly proclaim their faith. Or lack thereof,
or whatever.
What next? The banning of <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">religous</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> services on ALL public property? Many
<SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">cemetaries</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> are public property, are religious <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">graveside</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> services going to be
banned at them? I think <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">therewold</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> be more than a little public outcry.
Whatever Jefferson's intent, the law of the land does not disallow the use
of public <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">buldings</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> 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.
<SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Kai</SPAN></SPAN> T. <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Eiselein</SPAN></SPAN>
Editor
<SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Latah</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> Eagle
521 S. Jackson St.
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 882-0666 Fax (208) 882-0130
<A href="mailto:editor%40lataheagle.com">editor@lataheagle.com</A>
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Palouse</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> since 1994.
<A href="http://www.fsr.net" target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A>
<A href="mailto:Vision2020%40moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
</TT></PRE></DIV><!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_7afc732d-30f7-44a9-b99a-b79184cd776b --></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>