Church and State

[curefiend]

I find it worrying that a certain sect of the population no longer believes in the seperation of church and state, and as a matter of fact is supportive of mixing and blending the two. I would say this clearly shows a naive perspective of history. It would be easy for me to drop the cliche argument against church and state by pointing out the theocratic regimes in the Middle East, or even point to periods in the past where church and state were united, resulting in much religious persecution.

It is also a spit on the founding fathers intentions to assume that they did not want a seperation between church and state. Aside from the first ammendment in the bill of rights, there have been a number of other documents that state their opinions on the matter. If the founding fathers truly wanted it to be a Christian state, they could have easily done so during the founding of the country but they refused, even during the Constitutional Conference, they voted down a Christian qualification in order to run for office.

[TheGuru]

I wouldn't call it a "spit" on the founding fathers, but I also worry that certain people no longer believe in the separate of church and state.

[Archangelwolf]

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, in particular, were ADAMANT about the separation of church and state.

I, too, am concerned; as I believe that ANY religion is a private affair. However, this is a two-edged sword. Many Christians who believe in separation contradict themselves; because they say that Christianity is still the majority. The Constitution was created to protect the individual rights and freedoms of even the SMALLEST minorities. Therefore, when it comes to public buildings, state buildings, etc., I must agree with the some of the courts' decisions in that regard. In the conservatives defense, however, we must not forget that the Ten Commandments was a big influence on our own Bill of Rights. That in itself, regardless of belief, is indisputable; and should be considered.

Arch.

[Phenom]

I'd say it was ingenius for the founding fathers to do this.

[MarkVI]

The separation of church and state is incredibly important.
Church, as I'll call it here, tells us how to live our lives.
State does not, nor should it.

We give up some of our rights for safety, like the right to drive where ever you want as fast as you want. We have speed limits and red lights for a reason. It's a compromise.

Church is not to be mixed with state, the outcome is a theocracy that will alienate or even prosecute those who aren't in the same religious clique.

Church is a personal choice, my choice may differ from yours. We're allowed to have that. In this country we have a freedom of religion, and from religion. If we choose, we don't have to practice a religion and the government can't do anything about it.

The ideologues who have a stranglehold on any country's government isn't going to be for the people.

We can't make everyone happy, but we should try to understand others and why they think the way they do. It may open our eyes to why we think in our own ways.

There's a pursuit of happiness, not a guarantee of it. We have to figure that out on our own. :rolleyes:

[InterestedParty]

Wow, I would have rather gotten to know a few of you before I felt compelled to respond in such a manner that is going to clearly put me on the outside looking in to your community.

No where in the Bill of Rights does it say that you have the right to freedom from religion. You have the right to freedom of religion. I don't give a hoot what the Supreme Court says. They were clearly legislating from the bench, not interpretting the Constitution.

And this is a minute detail, but driving is not a right. It is a priviledge. If it was a right anyone at anytime could do it. You have to *earn* a license to be able to drive. You know this. So in this case, you have not given up any right such as driving fast for safety.

Thomas Jefferson believed government at all levels could accommodate religious expression -- even worship services -- as long as it was voluntary and the state didn't pick favorites. It was Thomas Jefferson who first used the words 'Separation of Church and State' when he wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut on January 1, 1802 containing the phrase that is familiar in today's political and judicial circles "a wall of separation between church and state." This phrase has become well known because it is considered to explain the "religion clause" of the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment *of* religion ...,"

2 days after sending the letter to the Baptists on January 3, 1802....

Did you know that John Leland one of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, 1802 and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching? Consequently, "contrary to all former practice," Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his letter to the Danbury Baptists "a wall of separation between church and state"; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services "constantly." Jefferson also granted permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held. Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government.

Jefferson saw no conflict between the First Amendment and the availability of public property, public facilities and even government personnel to religious bodies. At one point Jefferson remarked "that no nation could be governed without religion", he did not have in mind the corrupted variety of government churches. In this, he argued exactly as the most pious Founders did: Religious belief -- freely chosen and given wide public space -- nurtured morality and thus supported a free society.

[MarkVI]

Wow, you've humbled me, InterestedParty!
You really know your U.S. History.

"Religious belief -- freely chosen and given wide public space -- nurtured morality and thus supported a free society."

Religion does bring morality to a society and we're getting glimpses of what can occur when religion becomes less and less of an integral role in daily life.

By the way, our community is just beginning and I'm eager to see it grow with opinions and viewpoints all over.

[InterestedParty]

Mark...

Don't give me too much credit. It isn't that I know so much about US History, I just do my homework and I have the ability to copy and paste down to an artform. ;) I am not one to just take opinions or information on face value. I want to know the intent and content behind the issue and I want to see the evidence in print. So I use the internet to find it. I believe that historical references tend to be taken out of context and I believe we do a bigger injustice to ourselves and to our forefathers by just accepting peoples interpretations. I learn something new everyday. the link below is where I found the explanation discussed here. I hope you enjoy it and I hope it brings to light the reason and the intent behind the Separation of Church and State statement first made by Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

I urge everyone to read it and I hope that once they do they will act responsibly and not misrepresent the intent of the phrase again.

[palerider]

I find it worrying that a certain sect of the population no longer believes in the seperation of church and state, and as a matter of fact is supportive of mixing and blending the two. I would say this clearly shows a naive perspective of history. It would be easy for me to drop the cliche argument against church and state by pointing out the theocratic regimes in the Middle East, or even point to periods in the past where church and state were united, resulting in much religious persecution.

It is also a spit on the founding fathers intentions to assume that they did not want a seperation between church and state. Aside from the first ammendment in the bill of rights, there have been a number of other documents that state their opinions on the matter. If the founding fathers truly wanted it to be a Christian state, they could have easily done so during the founding of the country but they refused, even during the Constitutional Conference, they voted down a Christian qualification in order to run for office.

The founding fathers were exceedingly precise in stating what they did and did not want the government to be. If they had wanted a separation of church and state, it would be written in the constitution. It isn't. It is clear that you have never really taken any time to examine the establishment clause of the constitution. If you had, you would not make the suggestion that there is a separation of church and state.

I think that in order to grasp what the founders were saying when they wrote the establishment clause, you have to examine the stages it went through before it was finally accepted. If I may start at the beginning.

James Madison penned the first draft of the first amendment in 1789 and it read as follows¦

”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on the account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience in any manner or on any pretext be infringed. “

A subcommittee in the house promptly struck the word national from the original draft. After that, several revisions were debated on but none contained the word national. After lengthy debate, the house approved this wording¦

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

The senate took up debate on September 3 and the debates were conducted in secrecy so there is no record of their entire contents, but the Senate Journal does list 3 motions and votes. The record states that the motions were voted on and defeated and all three motions restricted the ban in the draft amendment to establishments preferring one sect above another. The first motion would have made the establishment clause read as follows¦

"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others."

This motion failed and then a motion was made to kill the amendment which also failed then another motion was made to word the amendment as follows¦

”Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.”

This motion failed as well. A further motion was made to word the amendment as follows¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.”

This motion also failed and as a result, the senate adopted the language that the house had suggested¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing religion.”

Six days later, the Senate took up the clause again. This time they changed the House amendment to read¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

When the rewording was returned to the House, it was rejected and they suggested a joint conference. The Senate refused to back down on its wording, but did agree to the conference. The committee consisted of Madison as chairman of the House conferees, joined by Sherman and Vining, and Ellsworth as chairman of the Senate conferees, joined by Paterson and Carroll. Four of the six had been members of the Constitutional Convention.

The members of the House delegation simply refused to accept the Senate’s wording of the amendment. They said that they would not be satisfied with a simple ban on the preference of one sect or religion over all others. After much debate, the delegation from the Senate gave in and the amendment was drafted to read as we know it today¦

”Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Ok, so much for the history lesson. In considering the wording of this amendment in relation to the wording of the rest of the amendments a glaring inconsistency is evident. Look at all of the rights offered for incorporation in the Bill of Rights. Now ask a couple of questions with regard to those rights¦

1. What is the right in question?
2. Who does the right apply to?

When you apply these questions to the rest of the rights, the answers are obvious. Take, for example, freedom of speech. The answers are , the right to speak freely without fear of reprisal from the government and the right applies to everyone. But the establishment clause presents a problem when you try to apply the same questions why do you suppose that is?

The clause doesn’t seem to be so much right, with regard to individuals as it is a prohibition. There simply is nothing personal about this right...so why include it in the bill of rights unless it indeed is a right?

This clause is either the same, or different from the free exercise of religion. If it is the same then how does it enhance an individual’s religious freedom? If it is different, however, then what is it, because it isn’t a right to religious liberty.

Since it is in the bill of rights it must be a right, but obviously not an individual right by any stretch of the imagination, then whose right is it?

The answer that seems most obvious is that it is protecting the rights of the states. It is well documented that the states had religious establishments that were in effect for decades after the Bill of Rights was adopted and they were ended not by any federal mandate, but because of choices made by the individual states.

If one reads the establishment clause in the historical context of new law in a new country it seems quite clear that the establishment clause was worded to protect the religious establishments of the individual states from any interference by the federal government. What other religious establishments existed in this country in 1791?

In this light, it seems that the founders quite possibly were attempting to protect both the individual's right to religious freedom, and the state's rights to have their establishments of religion without the burden of federal interference. What they obviously did not have any mind to do was establish any sort of separation between the church and the state.

[palerider]

The union of church and state is an unholy alliance, and it produces bad offspring.

And an attempt at complete separation can bear no good either. Our founders clearly didn't want a theocracy, but by the same token, they made no provision within the constitution to keep religion out either.

[palerider]

If there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is that our nation was founded on secular principles and not religious doctrine. The founding fathers well knew that the separation of church and state was the only way to preserve religious freedom. Religious wars had been waged in Europe over its union; and, indeed, some of the first colonists, the Pilgrims, came to America to escape state-sponsored religious persecution. Our right to worship freely, without government interference, is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and not by God. It is time that Christians reconcile themselves with this fundamental fact.

The first amendment does not guarantee you freedom from religion, it promises you freedom of religion and if people of religion elect a man or woman, in part, because of their beliefs, it is that elected person's responsibility to adhere to those beliefs when making policy decisions.

If you find any wording in the constitution that would establish a barrier between one's faith and one's public service, I would be interested in seeing it. Claiming a separation when you are unable to point it out in the constitution is a pointless exercise.

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.

Exactly which part of that statement do you believe establishes a separation of church and state? And before you suggest that this nation was "founded" on secular principles, I would suggest that you reference the Declaration of Independence. The document that established this nation as a free nation. Ample reference was made in it to God and where human rights come from. By the way, the Declaration of Independence, was ratified as the law of the land prior to the writing of the Constitution and to this day has not been negated by law.

Your "separation" of church and state is a fiction.

[palerider]

Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document; it was a declaration of war - and a pretty piece of propaganda! The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that inspired our revolution (and that as France as well) gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the declaration - George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention - and James Madison, who drafted the First Amendment - all declared that the government was not founded on religion. And this the more, the Supreme

Actually, you are quite wrong with regard to the declaration not being a foundational document.

Samuel Adams pointed out: "Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled."

The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Let me lay out the legal nuts and bolts of the Declaration of Independence:

With the vote for independence from england and the ratification of the Declaration of Independence on 07/04/1776 a new entity was created. That entity was the USA. In the Declaration, the purpose of government is identified and laid out. That purpose was defined as securing the inalienable rights that we have as human beings.

The government of the USA is organized by the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution is the bylaws of the entity, the entity being the USA. The Constitution provides the authority and the proceedures by which the representatives of "We the People", (the government of the USA) are to go about "securing" the inalienable rights that the Declaration acknowledges that we have and it is governments charge to protect.

The Declaration brought the USA into existence and described the purpose of the USA. The Constitution is nothing more than the set of rules and proceedures by which that purpose is to be fulfilled. If the purpose of the constitution is to establish how our inalienable rights are to be secured, then action that denies any of those inalienable rights to any one or any group without specific enumeration into law explaining the whats, whys, and wherefores, is explicitly unconstitutional.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

History simply denies this bit of fiction. At the time of the signing of the Constitution, there were no less than 6 states that had established churches. None of these was closed as a result of the constitution and it was more than a decade before the last one was ended and that was a result of a vote by the people of the state and nothing do do with the federal government.

I went through the establishment clause in detail above. If you can make an argument against it, or show me where I am wrong then by all means so so but to simply make claims about what the establishment clause did when history shows that it did not indeed do those things is just silly.

[palerider]

I think that there is little point in arguing the issue with you further - certainly, there would be no point in arguing with one who refuses to accept the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States, which decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution are binding as law - for it is obvious that I shall not convince you.

Clearly you have no argument with my explanation of the establishment clause as the founders wrote it. You seem to believe that either there is a total separation of church and state or there is a theocracy. The fact is that there is no separation of church and state. Had our founders desired such, they would have encoded it into the constitution.

If you believe that religious people who are elected do not draw on their morals when making policy decisions, you are sadly mistaken.

And a court decision is not binding law. A court decision is just that and remains so until a future decision supercedes it. To date, the supreme court has reversed itself roughly 192 times.

[palerider]

In this, I would say that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in is pretty much the last word on the subject.


Until they reverse themselves again.

[palerider]

As I said so (had you taken the trouble to read the rest of my post).

I read your entire post. I just didn't see anything there that merited comment.

Let me spell it out for you. It is not the Declaration of Independence, but rather the Constitution and Bill of Rights that the basis of our government and source of our rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “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; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . .” The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

Your knowledge of our founding documents seems to be a mile wide and an inch deep. You seem to know the words well enough, but have little understanding of what they mean when taken in the context in which they were written. You have, as is typical of modern liberals, completely disregarded what the founders actually said and twisted some passages that you have taken completely out of context to mean what you want them to mean. The supreme court has said that it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.


The founding fathers, the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the sovereign power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” may be unalienable, but they are not absolute.

Au contraire. All men are created equal. We are all born red, and slimy with little ability to do anything but cry, eat, and eliminate. We, in this nation, are not born to position and that is the extent of what the founders meant when they said we are all created equal.

Our inalienable rights are very nearly absolute and it is clear that you don't fully understand the nature of the legal system that protects them. Our legal system is such that in order for a right to be denied, specific legislation must be written and ratified that describes which right is to be denied, from whom it is going to be denied, and the reason that it will be denied. If you can show me specific legislation that forbids elected officials to consider policy decisions in the light of their religious beliefs, then you will have a case for a separation of church and state. If you can show me legislation that forbids a person of religion from holding office based on his or her religious beliefs, you will have a case for a separation of church and state. I don't believe you can show me either and in that case, you have no argument. You have a fiction.

In this compromise rests the security for our individual rights and freedoms, including religious freedom. It is the Dominionists - those Christian fanatics - that would rewrite history and turn our nation of laws into a theocracy, when history has shown that state-sponsored religion results in the limitation of religious freedom, and, ultimately, religious persecution.

You keep saying this but the history of this nation clearly shows that you are wrong. As I have pointed out several times now, there were no less than 6 states at the time of the signing of the constitution that had established churches. That is, one couldn't hold office in those states or even be elected to federal office from those states unless one belonged to that state established church. And those state established churches continued on, in some cases for more than a decade after the signing without interference from the federal government. They ended as a result of votes by the people of those states.

You will find no cases of religious persecution in the US after the signing of the constitution which further illustrates your lack of knowledge. You paint with a very broad, ill informed brush. You don't seem to understand that religious people can make policy decisions within the government without creating a theocracy. The branches of our government prevent the establishment of a theocracy.

Religious people holding office and making policy decisions based on their beliefs do not constitute a theocracy. And you appear more fanatical than most religious people that I know. Painting with your broad brush, making allegations that are unfounded, and claiming words, ideas, and phrases exist in the Constitution that simply are not there.

The United States was not founded on religion; and to impose religious doctrine in place of our secular law would be to return to the horrors of the Inquisition and iniquities of the Court of Star Chamber.

The US was founded with a freedom of religion. That means that religious people have exactly the same right to be elected as secular people and religious elected people have the same right to draw on their religious philosophy when making policy decisions as secular people have to draw on their secular philosophy when making policy decisons.

You seem to percieve this as a black and white issue and it is not. I can point to far more intrusion in my life by policy instituted by people who draw on a secular philosophy than I can from people who draw on a religious philosophy. And historically, I can point to far more misery and persecution by secularists than by even the most fanatical of religious zealots.

By the way, your reference to the "horrors" of the inquisition are laughable when contrasted to Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler et al. Over the course of the inquisition, church records indicate that less than 10,000 people were killed and they kept very good records because they were doing "God's" work. Even Saddam killed more drawing on his secular philosophy. Even the most outrageous number quoted by the wacko left doesn't even equal the number killed by Pol Pot and Pol Pot was a small timer compared to Stalin Lenin and Mao. Literally hundreds of millions of corpses may be laid at the altar of secular philosophy.

[palerider]

Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document; it was a declaration of war - and a pretty piece of propaganda!

I find that I have a bit more to say with regard to this most basic misunderstanding of the legality of our founding documents. Perhaps if you get to the most basic level of your misunderstanding of the nature of our founding and of the legal system that arose from that founding, you will come to realize that your present understanding is no more than a fabrication of your own making. Or maybe you wont.

"...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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

This passage, as you know, is from the Declaration of Independence. What you don't seem to know is that it was, and still is a legal document, and it does have real bearing on present legal matters.

The Declaration was, undeniably, the constitutional law of this nation for certain purposes. It freed the people from their loyalty to the king of England for example. In fact, it was declared so by the judicial tribunals of this country. No American during the Revolutionary war, or since could be legally tried on this soil for treason to the king. It stands to reason that if the Declaration were the constitutional law of the nation for that purpose, then it was also the constitutional law for the purpose of recognizing and establishing, as law, the inalienable right of everyone on these shores to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does it not?

The lawfulness of the people disavowing their loyalty to the king was agreed upon by the people of this nation and that act was made legal by the instrument that declared that the rebellion; and it’s authority rested squarely upon, and was, in itself a consequence of the right that all men had to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the act of rebellion against the king was determined to be lawful, then it becomes very difficult to argue that the principles that legalized the act did not become the law. Furthermore, when the country ratified the act of freeing themselves from the crown, did they not also, by definition, ratify and acknowledge the principles that they declared made the revolution legal?

So, whether the Declaration was the law for a year, or just one day, it established that in this nation, all men had an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. From that point forward, for anyone claiming otherwise, the burden falls upon them to establish that the right has been constitutionally taken away, and to do that, he (or she) is going to have to show a deliberate constitutional description of the particular individuals who have had their inalienable right abolished.

Simply stated, the people of this country, in the instrument by which they first announced their political independence from the king and declared their right to establish a government of their own also declared that the inalienable right of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was a ”SELF EVIDENT TRUTH”.

Self evident truths, except those which are explicitly denied are taken for granted and constitute a fundamental part of all constitutions, compacts and systems of government. If we did not take for granted self evident truths it would be impossible for any orderly government to be established because it would be impossible to make an actual inventory of all of the self evident truths that are to be taken into account in the administration of a government. This is especially true of governments as we have here in the US that are founded upon a contract. It is impossible in a contract of government to list all of the self evident truths that would have to be acted upon in the administration of the law and therefore they are all taken for granted EXCEPT for the ones that have been plainly denied.

The principle that self evident truths (even those not enumerated) make a part of all laws and contracts unless they are clearly refused is not only necessary to the very existence of a civil society, but it is a prerequisite to the administration of justice in each and every case that may arise out of a contract or other arrangement between individuals. As with government, it would be impossible for us to make contracts at all if it were going to be necessary to list each and every self evident truth that might have some bearing on their contract before a judge. Because of this, self evident truths are taken for granted out of legal necessity.

Governments have no more right to deny self evident truths than individuals in any case. To deny that self evident truths are part of the law is no different than arguing that self evident deception is part of the law.

So if, according to our founders, it is a self evident truth that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that truth must be present in all of our laws and all of our constitutions except in caes where it has been unmistakably and precicely denied.

With the vote for independence from england and the ratification of the Declaration of Independence on 07/04/1776 a new entity was created. That entity was the USA. In the Declaration, the purpose of government is identified and laid out. That purpose was defined as securing the inalienable rights that we have as human beings.

One of our most basic rights is the free exercise of our religion and calling on religious philosophy in policy making decisions is included in that free exercise. I am still waiting for you to demonstrate a constitutional separation of religion and state. Evidently it is not forthcoming.

[palerider]

You will learn for yourself the true source of your rights when you have occasion to assert them. God-given rights are only good in heaven. In the world of man’s making, one need have recourse to the law.

I have already learned for myself. It is you who has yet to accept the reality that elected officals do indeed draw upon their religious philosophies when making policy decisions and in doing so, daily demonstrate that your belief in a separation of religion and state is a fabrication of your own making as opposed to looking the truth squarely in the face.

The constitution does not give me the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it acknowledges that I was given them by my creator and simply sets about protecting them. That is one of the primary differences between the US and most other nations that claim human rights. Most other nations don't acknowledge our creator as the source of those rights. The rights are granted by their governments rather than their governments being charged with the protection of rights granted by God.

[palerider]

I have already cited the Supreme Court decision in Everson (see Post# 14, supra) which is the controlling authority on the subject; but you refuse to recognize it as the law. Obviously, if you won’t take the word of the Supreme Court, I won’t be able to convince you. So what’s the point in arguing? It seems a tiresome adventure. I am reminded of a conversation with a gentleman in a bar, who, during the course of discussing the Second Amendment, asserted flatly that he had a "God-given" right to own a gun. Prudence dictated that I not question what portion of the Scriptures he was relying upon for such "high" authority, as I was convinced that he would brook no argument on the subject.


One more example in what seems to be an endless litany of misunderstandings, or deliberate misrepresentations on your part. Reynolds v US did nothing more than establish that one could not flaunt US law in favor of one's religious belief. It in no way said that elected officials could not draw on their religious philosophy when considering legislation. The only way to erect a wall of separation between church and state would be to forbid legislators from calling on their religious beliefs when considering policy.

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing was no more than a court decision that allowed children to be transported on government owned busses to religious schools. If the "wall" existed, as you believe, the court would not have allowed federal or state money to be used in transporting children to religious schools.


Cases such as Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools
v. Mergens, and Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District clearly demonstrate that the federal government must offer the same sorts of assistance to church based organizations as it offers to secular organizations. If there were indeed a "wall" of separation, federal and state money would not be used to support religious organizations.

[terra kengo]

I'm jumping into a well-developed argument, but I don't want to interfere with the banter at hand. I would like to just offer my two-cent stamp on the topic-- not the argument-- and jump back out.

First of all, I think it’s an insult to American intellect to demand that historical buildings be defaced and “civilly vandalized” in the spirit of separation of church and state. The removal of religious icons and symbols is a transgression against preserving government history. With such an overwhelming majority of staunch Freemasons among the “founding fathers,” federal buildings, landmarks, and monuments all over the country are riddled with pagan and Christian symbolism and iconography that give clues into the background and perspective of the founding fathers. Removing imagery that has been in place for years because someone is “offended” is just as bad as Daniele da Volterra painting over many of Michelangelo’s paintings because he considered the genitals and backsides to be obscene.

Secondly, back to the original post, it is not a growing trend for people to want to meld church and state. The reason that this appears to be the trend is because many people who have always enjoyed the union of church and state are now beginning to see religion stripped from common aspects of their lifestyles. For instance, the removal of prayer from schools, the removal of religious symbols from public buildings, taking “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. has caused a number of people who have always valued prayer in schools and the original Pledge to be irritated at the change in policy. My personal stance is that some of the government’s more recent—and by recent, I mean the last twenty years—steps towards true separation have been for the benefit of society and some much toward the detriment.

What is scary, though, is the growing trend toward privatization and corporatization of public schools and institutions because of aggressive advocates of the union of church and state. What is the most worrisome, though, is the mindless political stance that is increasingly more interwoven among American citizens (not politicians). Perhaps it’s the area in which I live, but it seems that more and more self-proclaimed Christians are adopting the same ridiculous ultra-right-wing, neocon political views as if they were religiously mandated, ideas that carry with them an air of intolerance, prejudice, and apathy. These people become so biased that simple, rational thought is completely beyond their reach. I do see government leaders and political figures capitalizing on this trend in order to bank votes.

[palerider]

Tera kengo,

I was recently in DC and took a tour of the Supreme Court. I had been warned in advance about what the tour guides were saying about the building so I gathered up some old information from the men who designed and built the structure.

As we were touring the building, as I had been warned, the tour guide pointed out Moses holding the 10 commandments and set about explaining that Moses was actually a highly sytlized amalgam of the founding fathers bringing forth the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

When she finished her spiel and directed us to move on, I held up the group and confronted her with information from the original designers of the building and those who concieved the artwork. Great care had been taken in describing the image of Moses coming from the mount with the 10 Commandments. She had no answer, but to her credit, she didn't try to snow me. She just kept her mouth shut and during the rest of the tour, she conspicuously avoided pointing out artwork that obviously depicted subjects that were religous in nature.

[terra kengo]

I commend your preservation of accurate history. Without the Moses, though, no one would have been educated on that bit of history because there would have been no point of debate.

I'm not exactly sure whether or not you're agreeing with me, or if that is just a side-story. I feel that I was supposed to infer more meaning from it than I did... Pardon my ignorance, but did you imply something deeper that I missed?

[palerider]

I commend your preservation of accurate history. Without the Moses, though, no one would have been educated on that bit of history because there would have been no point of debate.

I'm not exactly sure whether or not you're agreeing with me, or if that is just a side-story. I feel that I was supposed to infer more meaning from it than I did... Pardon my ignorance, but did you imply something deeper that I missed?

Just a side story by way of agreeing with you.

[HighVoltage123]

The union of church and state is an unholy alliance, and it produces bad offspring.

Does " clash of interests" means something to you... can you imagine what would happen if these two institutions fight... do you know what inquisition is?

[vyo476]

Does " clash of interests" means something to you... can you imagine what would happen if these two institutions fight... do you know what inquisition is?

Do you know what inquisition is? I am in no way agreeing with the person who you are disagreeing with (we can disregard the only saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" because I think the Cold War proved just how ludicrous and dishonorable that idea can be) but really, can you get a clue please?

First and foremost, you used the word "inquisition," rather than talking about "the Inquisition." That was your first mistake. The word inquisition itself is defined thus on dictionary.com:

1. an official investigation, esp. one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments.
2. any harsh, difficult, or prolonged questioning.
3. the act of inquiring; inquiry; research.
4. an investigation, or process of inquiry.
5. a judicial or official inquiry.
6. the finding of such an inquiry.
7. the document embodying the result of such inquiry.
8. (initial capital letter) Roman Catholic Church.
a. a former special tribunal, engaged chiefly in combating and punishing heresy. Compare Holy Office.
b. Spanish Inquisition.

Only with the capital "I" does it expressly refer to the religious persecution best known as the Spanish Inquisition; the word "inquisition" alone can refer to any overly harsh investigation and punishment. Under this definition, it is hardly fair to associate religious institutions with inquisitions - as there have been plenty of peaceable churches and religious groups and more than a few inquisitorial secular groups (the Soviets come very strongly to mind).

And even were you referring to the Spanish Inquisition in that statement, the rest of your statement is contradictory. There was no "conflict of interests" during the Inquisition and there wasn't any when the founding fathers were writing the constitution. Remember, government "for the people" (or "by the people" depending on whether you subscribe to Jeffersonian or Jacksonian democracy) is a fairly new concept in human history. During the Spanish Inquisition, the theocratic Spanish government (no separation of church and state) did exactly what it thought was best. There was no conflict of interests between the church and the government because they were the same thing. Similarly, there was no conflict of interests between the founding fathers' religion and the government of the United States of America. Bear in mind that many (an exact figure would be nice but I can't recall it at the moment) of the founding fathers were practitioners of and advocates for Deism, a very hands-off denomination of Christianity. They enjoyed the positive aspects of Christianity without any of that propagation nonsense that gives the Catholics such a bad name. There is no conflict of interest between the government of the USA and Deism because both adhere to a set of moral principles but both favor tolerance and peaceful coexistence with all religions. And yes, those "moral principles" are fluid - as in, if someone has made a mistake with something, there is no religious precept that says that he cannot later apologize and make necessary amendments to previous statements and actions. Amendments to necessary statements and actions...sounds familiar, doesn't it?

The separation of church and state argument is a terribly interesting one. There is no official state religion of the United States (with respect to those six state religions that existed in the early days of our country - I have been reading your posts, palerider, even if everyone else seems to be ignoring you). People in this country make decisions based on what they believe, something you can hardly argue with. Trying to fully separate church and state - limiting how people make their decisions - is a restriction of freedom of thought and action which would be inexcusable. If you don't like "religious thinking" in your government than vote against candidates who are proponents of such things, or come up with decent arguments why they are wrong about specific arguments (like, for instance, the present gay marriage debate - but I believe there are several threads for this already so let's not start arguing it here). You cannot argue that church and state must be completely, one hundred percent separate, because it is simply not possible in a country where religion of any kind exists.

[palerider]

People in this country make decisions based on what they believe, something you can hardly argue with. Trying to fully separate church and state - limiting how people make their decisions - is a restriction of freedom of thought and action which would be inexcusable. If you don't like "religious thinking" in your government than vote against candidates who are proponents of such things, or come up with decent arguments why they are wrong about specific arguments (like, for instance, the present gay marriage debate - but I believe there are several threads for this already so let's not start arguing it here). You cannot argue that church and state must be completely, one hundred percent separate, because it is simply not possible in a country where religion of any kind exists.

Well stated and completely inarguable.

[Mare Tranquillity]

People in this country make decisions based on what they believe, something you can hardly argue with. Trying to fully separate church and state - limiting how people make their decisions - is a restriction of freedom of thought and action which would be inexcusable. If you don't like "religious thinking" in your government than vote against candidates who are proponents of such things, or come up with decent arguments why they are wrong about specific arguments (like, for instance, the present gay marriage debate - but I believe there are several threads for this already so let's not start arguing it here). You cannot argue that church and state must be completely, one hundred percent separate, because it is simply not possible in a country where religion of any kind exists.

Well stated and completely inarguable.

Horsefeathers, Mr. PR, not only is it arguable, but it would only be considered "inagruable" by someone who is a member of the vast religious MAJORITY in a country. "Freedom of religion" means ALL religions and when it is acceptable for the majority religion to vote into law their particular religious beliefs and require ALL OTHER PEOPLE to obey those laws, that goes directly against the intent of the founding fathers who had suffered under the abuse of the Church of England because it was in bed with the government.

While it may be impossible to keep a perfect wall of separation between the Church and State, we should--by God--try our darndest to maintain one.

[Justinian]

The union of church and state is an unholy alliance, and it produces bad offspring.

Who do you think you are? You have no idea what you're talking about. How dare you insult Christianity with your stupid weasel coffee-house dogma. You must be an atheist. And by the way, as stated, it was unconstitutional for eliminating it from the government.

[Justinian]

"The separation of church and state argument is a terribly interesting one. There is no official state religion of the United States (with respect to those six state religions that existed in the early days of our country - I have been reading your posts, palerider, even if everyone else seems to be ignoring you). People in this country make decisions based on what they believe, something you can hardly argue with. Trying to fully separate church and state - limiting how people make their decisions - is a restriction of freedom of thought and action which would be inexcusable. If you don't like "religious thinking" in your government than vote against candidates who are proponents of such things, or come up with decent arguments why they are wrong about specific arguments (like, for instance, the present gay marriage debate - but I believe there are several threads for this already so let's not start arguing it here). You cannot argue that church and state must be completely, one hundred percent separate, because it is simply not possible in a country where religion of any kind exists."

Bravo, Vyo. There's some good in the old man, yet.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Who do you think you are? You have no idea what you're talking about. How dare you insult Christianity with your stupid weasel coffee-house dogma. You must be an atheist. And by the way, as stated, it was unconstitutional for eliminating it from the government.

Wow! The above bolded statement is a beaut. Could you please give us some documentation on that? You know, right out of the ol' Constitution, a quote about eliminating religion from government being "unconstitutional"?

[DrWho]

I find it worrying that a certain sect of the population no longer believes in the seperation of church and state, and as a matter of fact is supportive of mixing and blending the two. I would say this clearly shows a naive perspective of history. It would be easy for me to drop the cliche argument against church and state by pointing out the theocratic regimes in the Middle East, or even point to periods in the past where church and state were united, resulting in much religious persecution.

It is also a spit on the founding fathers intentions to assume that they did not want a seperation between church and state. Aside from the first ammendment in the bill of rights, there have been a number of other documents that state their opinions on the matter. If the founding fathers truly wanted it to be a Christian state, they could have easily done so during the founding of the country but they refused, even during the Constitutional Conference, they voted down a Christian qualification in order to run for office.


the founding fathers very clearly did not want a theocracy. But they also very clearly wanted every man to be able to influence the state for whatever reasons his conscience was motivated - even religious. And they clearly wanted the state to recognize that people were motivated by religious beliefs.

Separation of church and state just means that the feds will not endorse or oppress religion. But local governments were free to represent the people of their community. A community of all plymouth brethren would obviously have very different laws than a community of all jews.

[top gun]

As I said so (had you taken the trouble to read the rest of my post).

Let me spell it out for you. It is not the Declaration of Independence, but rather the Constitution and Bill of Rights that the basis of our government and source of our rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “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; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . .” The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers, the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the sovereign power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” may be unalienable, but they are not absolute. In this compromise rests the security for our individual rights and freedoms, including religious freedom. It is the Dominionists - those Christian fanatics - that would rewrite history and turn our nation of laws into a theocracy, when history has shown that state-sponsored religion results in the limitation of religious freedom, and, ultimately, religious persecution. The United States was not founded on religion; and to impose religious doctrine in place of our secular law would be to return to the horrors of the Inquisition and iniquities of the Court of Star Chamber.

I was going to jump in here and help out but I can see you hold this debate in the palm of your hand and need none.

Good job my friend...:)

[USMC the Almighty]

I was going to jump in here and help out but I can see you hold this debate in the palm of your hand and need none.

Good job my friend...:)

He didn't say anything thoughtful or relevant. He just rambled on about something off topic...

[numinus]

I find it worrying that a certain sect of the population no longer believes in the seperation of church and state, and as a matter of fact is supportive of mixing and blending the two. I would say this clearly shows a naive perspective of history. It would be easy for me to drop the cliche argument against church and state by pointing out the theocratic regimes in the Middle East, or even point to periods in the past where church and state were united, resulting in much religious persecution.

It is also a spit on the founding fathers intentions to assume that they did not want a seperation between church and state. Aside from the first ammendment in the bill of rights, there have been a number of other documents that state their opinions on the matter. If the founding fathers truly wanted it to be a Christian state, they could have easily done so during the founding of the country but they refused, even during the Constitutional Conference, they voted down a Christian qualification in order to run for office.
Religion is a right of thought and inseparable from the human person.

A church on the other hand, is an organization made up of people with like faiths.

The principle of separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of a church to wield the coersive powers of the state, as manifested in the police and military.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that any particular church is in possession of such powers in the us.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Religion is a right of thought and inseparable from the human person.

A church on the other hand, is an organization made up of people with like faiths.

The principle of separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of a church to wield the coersive powers of the state, as manifested in the police and military.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that any particular church is in possession of such powers in the us.

The laws discriminating against homosexual and transgendered people are driven entirely by religion, there is nothing to support any prohibition against gays and trannies EXCEPT religion, but yet the Christian majority in this country has managed to use the power of the government to push their religious agenda on us.

[numinus]

The laws discriminating against homosexual and transgendered people are driven entirely by religion, there is nothing to support any prohibition against gays and trannies EXCEPT religion, but yet the Christian majority in this country has managed to use the power of the government to push their religious agenda on us.

You mean there is a law that prohibits one from being gay or a transexual?

And you say the military or police, acting on orders from a church, is enforcing this?

[DrWho]

The laws discriminating against homosexual and transgendered people are driven entirely by religion, there is nothing to support any prohibition against gays and trannies EXCEPT religion, but yet the Christian majority in this country has managed to use the power of the government to push their religious agenda on us.


The social discrimination existing in our country are driven by the people in our country. It is just as prevalent in non-religious people as it is in religious people.

[DrWho]

Religion is a right of thought and inseparable from the human person.

A church on the other hand, is an organization made up of people with like faiths.

The principle of separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of a church to wield the coersive powers of the state, as manifested in the police and military.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that any particular church is in possession of such powers in the us.

Very interesting statements.

However, if the principle of the claus were to limit the power of a church to wield power then the claus would read "a church shall make no law..." As it is the claus reads "congress shall make no law..." The intent is to limit congress' power to wield the coersive powers of the state in the name of religion.

Religion empassions people greatly. The state wields great coercive power. Mixing the two is indeed dangerous.

Of the two I fear the state far more as I can avoid religion if I choose to.

[top gun]

The laws discriminating against homosexual and transgendered people are driven entirely by religion, there is nothing to support any prohibition against gays and trannies EXCEPT religion, but yet the Christian majority in this country has managed to use the power of the government to push their religious agenda on us.

I agree with you.

Often I hear the argument that the separation claus is one sided... that it only protects the church from the state. This is not the case and it is obvious if you break down what happens if the state endorses and is not separate outside of the church's influence. By doing so you will see how the separation claus also protects government from the church.

As soon as the government officially supports any one religions doctrine that by its very nature discriminates against all other religions and that if it were the only thing would violate the very principle of the state not being allowed to interfere with the church... any church.

We skirt the issue by speaking of God but God is a general term. All religions think they have God. Notice we don't say... In Jesus we trust.

[Justinian]

The laws discriminating against homosexual and transgendered people are driven entirely by religion, there is nothing to support any prohibition against gays and trannies EXCEPT religion, but yet the Christian majority in this country has managed to use the power of the government to push their religious agenda on us.

And this is why we do it. If you would conform to the understanding of community and social decency, then you would lose the label of freak and gain the recognition of a challenged Christian.

[Justinian]

Intent upon an egalitarian condition for society, the humanitarian tries to extirpate those spiritual essences in man which make possible truly human life.

[Segep]

The only thing I'd like to see extirpated around here is your posts.

[Coyote]

Intent upon an egalitarian condition for society, the humanitarian tries to extirpate those spiritual essences in man which make possible truly human life.

What's wrong with humanitarians? You'd be dead now without them.

[top gun]

The only thing I'd like to see extirpated around here is your posts.

:D :D That's too funny! :D :D

[numinus]

Very interesting statements.

However, if the principle of the claus were to limit the power of a church to wield power then the claus would read "a church shall make no law..." As it is the claus reads "congress shall make no law..." The intent is to limit congress' power to wield the coersive powers of the state in the name of religion.

Religion empassions people greatly. The state wields great coercive power. Mixing the two is indeed dangerous.

Of the two I fear the state far more as I can avoid religion if I choose to.

The principle of the separation of church and state is a european invention. The first ammendment of the us constitution is merely a manifestation of this principle.

Ironically enough, it was meant to prohibit the state from interfering in religious affairs, and not the other way around.

The most important aspect to consider in any question of separation of church and state is political power, which theoretically, holds the right to command the armed forces.

[DrWho]

The most important aspect to consider in any question of separation of church and state is political power, which theoretically, holds the right to command the armed forces.

In that case the churches have virtually no political power. The most they can do is influence voters to favor candidates who favor one point of view or another. They can't even name a particular candidate from the pulpit.

Personally, I think they should be able to name candidates that they favor just as most major newspapers endorse candidates that they favor. As it is most churches I have been in have no official position and the work of influencing the congregation takes place one person to another - very grassroots.

[numinus]

In that case the churches have virtually no political power. The most they can do is influence voters to favor candidates who favor one point of view or another. They can't even name a particular candidate from the pulpit.

Personally, I think they should be able to name candidates that they favor just as most major newspapers endorse candidates that they favor. As it is most churches I have been in have no official position and the work of influencing the congregation takes place one person to another - very grassroots.
I think this is due more to internal church policy rather than anything else - at least within the rc heirarchy.

Personally, I can't see any reason for a priest not to endorse a certain candidate - in his capacity as a private citizen. This can only be a problem IF he coerses others to his position using the military.