Jesus...In...Space...

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article NASA and Church / State separation

On board the shuttle is a piece of an airplane that crashed in Ecuador in 1956 that carried members of the Missionary Aviation Fellowship. One of the shuttle astronaut contacted the Idaho-based group proposing that the item be taken into space as part of a government-funded exploration project. The event has re-ignited enthusiasm by religious groups for "space missionary" proselytizing.

"This is an inappropriate and unconstitutional use of resources, "charged Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists. NASA is a scientific and exploratory agency that is funded by taxpayers. Its
mission should not include religious grandstanding, or efforts to use outer space as a pulpit for religion."

Obviously there's the "much ado about nothing" angle, but given recent attempts to insert religion into "everything" my spidey senses are tingling.

Topic for debate:

Has NASA taken a giant leap for proselytizing?

[Nilloc James]

Would it be nearly as big a deal if say, it were something of significance to a Hindu?

The separation of church and state thing is so grossly misinterpreted it's sad.

I'd have the same opinion if it was buhdist, christain, hindu, islamic, pastafarian (all repent to the pasta monster!) or some random cult.

I agree seperation of state and church means all religions.

[nukewaste]

That's the misinterpretation. The separation of church and state does NOT mean you can't have religion or religious references in government; if that were the case, we should just throw the Declaration of Independence out right now:

...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

and

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

OH NOES!! Religion in our historical texts!

Let's re-read that particular amendment (1st amendment)

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.

Let's go to the specific, pertinent parts, in detail(bold for emphasis):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

So far as I know, there have been no laws enacted in the history of the United States that favors one religion over another. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. Having that astronaut take up an item of religious significance does not violate the separation of church and state based on the first statement. Let's check the second part of that article:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Well, that's interesting. It actually would have been illegal to PREVENT them from bringing it up with them. The law is pretty simple: the government can't stop you from practicing what you want, how you want; and the government can't endorse a state religion.

Remember why the pilgrims came here in the first place: they were discriminated against because they did not adhere to the state religion of England, the Church of England. THAT'S what the law is meant to prevent: from creating a state religion, and to let people believe what they want without fear of persecution.

It's the same thing with putting up the Ten Commandments on public grounds. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. What becomes wrong is if they forbid say, the Rig Veda, or the Koran up as well; that violates the second part and the first part all at once.

This is also the reason why the ACLU is really dumb. Their interpretation is that if you serve in a public capacity, you can't show or practice your religion publicly. This is not the case: it simply means that you can't use your position or authority to force that religion on others.

[McCulloch]

nukewaste, two things about the Declaration. Firstly, it is not your country's constitution. It is an important historical document, but it has not the force of law. Secondly, the few references to deity were vague enough to include the deists' somewhat nebulous notions of God.

So far as I know, there have been no laws enacted in the history of the United States that favors one religion over another.

As soon as the government funds faith based initiatives it favors religion.

The law is pretty simple: the government can't stop you from practicing what you want, how you want; and the government can't endorse a state religion.

And the government should not be funding the practice of religion.

Remember why the pilgrims came here in the first place: they were discriminated against because they did not adhere to the state religion of England, the Church of England.

And the pilgrims did not practice the kind of religious toleration subsequently enacted in your constitution. They were not opposed to state religion, just that particular state religion.

It's the same thing with putting up the Ten Commandments on public grounds. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. What becomes wrong is if they forbid say, the Rig Veda, or the Koran up as well; that violates the second part and the first part all at once.

If they put up the Ten commandments in a courtroom, for example, it sends the message that there may be a religious bias in the application of the law.

This is also the reason why the ACLU is really dumb. Their interpretation is that if you serve in a public capacity, you can't show or practice your religion publicly. This is not the case: it simply means that you can't use your position or authority to force that religion on others.

Not quite. You cannot use your position, authority or the public resources entrusted to you to promote your religion.

[Goat]

Remember why the pilgrims came here in the first place: they were discriminated against because they did not adhere to the state religion of England, the Church of England. THAT'S what the law is meant to prevent: from creating a state religion, and to let people believe what they want without fear of persecution.
.

Actually, that is a bit of a myth. The pilgrims came here because they were not allowed to shove their specific brand of religion on other people. They tried in in England, and their political part just got kicked out of power because of it.

[nukewaste]

Oh yeah, forgot those faith-based initiatives Obama and Bush pushed/are pushing. Yeah, opposed to those, regardless of how good their intentions are. My bad.

I also didn't specifically promote the Christian God; it's not something I believe in. One of my heroes is Jefferson, a deist through and through.

If they put up the Ten commandments in a courtroom, for example, it sends the message that there may be a religious bias in the application of the law.

That gets kind of tricky, doesn't it? Allowance of hinderance of putting up religious icons is usually done through a petition to the local council, right? Representatives are meant to enact the will of their constituents, so wouldn't that make it public consent? Republics like ours are funny things. I mean, technically, there's nothing wrong with it, so long as no other request for a religious icon is denied, and that it is not considered societally grotesque (like an inverted cross with and effigy of a baby nailed to it or something equally horrible). Absence of request does not imply religious favoritism, it just means nobody in that area wants anything else up badly enough. And seriously, if someone is offended by it, too bad. There are plenty of rights and privilidges made available in our laws, but one of them isn't the right to never be offended. That's part of tolerance. Want it chaned bad enough? Petition to have something else put up, either in substitution or in conjunction with.

I've got an interesting question, which is led by an example. Remember about a year or so ago, when an imam was invited into Senate to lead the opening prayer? (another example of religion in politics) And how there was some particularly zealous representative screaming him down and throwing some particularly mean epithets his way?

Well, according to the 1st amendment, itsn't that his right? Free speech and all, right? But then, isn't he encroaching on the imam's 1st amendment right of free expression of religion? Which is more right? At what point does one aspect of the 1st amendment encroach upon the other? Do we actually protect religious intolerance? Or is that the only topic where we are told to keep silent?

Also, I honestly didn't know that about the pilgrims. Just thought they were leaving persecution. Had no idea they would have supported a state religion or throcracy. Thanks for the insight, I'll have to look that up!