RE: Church and State

RE: Church and State (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 11:47:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Okay, I hate to tell you people this, there is NO place in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, where it is stated there is a separation of Church and State. It is only stated that there would be no establishment of a state religion, and that citizens have the right to worship as they choose. The fact that the position of Chaplain exists in every branch of the armed forces as well as in the Senate and House of Representatives, clearly indicate that there is a melding of church and state. Now, as it was once said by a wise man, "Put that in your peacepipe and smoke it." Actually there are two parts o the Constitution that make clear that church and state are to be seperate. The ban on religious tests and the first amendment. Jefferson wrote the text and he definitely thought there was a "wall of seperation" enchrined in the document. As to the nonsensical chaplain argument, the only way chaplains are allowed is that they have to accept chaplains of any and all faiths. That means no endorsement or one over the other.

Baroana -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 11:51:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Okay, I hate to tell you people this, there is NO place in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, where it is stated there is a separation of Church and State. It is only stated that there would be no establishment of a state religion, and that citizens have the right to worship as they choose. The fact that the position of Chaplain exists in every branch of the armed forces as well as in the Senate and House of Representatives, clearly indicate that there is a melding of church and state. Now, as it was once said by a wise man, "Put that in your peacepipe and smoke it." Actually, the entire First Amendment states, "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." This means that the government has to allow everyone to freely practice religion or atheism. It also means that the government cannot endorse one thing over another. Just because the military has chaplains so that soldiers can practice their religions while on active duty does not mean that church and state are melded. If there was such a thing as a chaplain for atheists, they would have one of those too.

jlf1961 -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 11:55:45 AM)
I never said there was an endorsement of one religion over another, I just said that as it stands there is a point where church and state are not separate. While the intent was there, the wording that would guarantee the concept is not. As it stands it is only a loophole, but loopholes have been exploited before. The point I am attempting to make is that people have said that "the separation of church and state" is in the constitution. It isnt. Yes you do not have to take a test on religion to hold office, but there are some opinions that does not separate church and state. You pointed out that all religions have to be accommodated, that is just in compliance with the clause that there be no state religion or church. By the way, Thomas Jefferson attended church services that were held IN the Capital Building, again that is not an example of separation.

Baroana -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 12:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I never said there was an endorsement of one religion over another, I just said that as it stands there is a point where church and state are not separate. If you don't understand where the separation part comes in, then I think you need to lay off that pipe smoking. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 While the intent was there, the wording that would guarantee the concept is not. Mama say mama saw mama what?????????????? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 By the way, Thomas Jefferson attended church services that were held IN the Capital Building, again that is not an example of separation. Yes, you know why? Because the First Amendment has been violated ever since it was written. Those violations have simply become less and less egregious over the years.

tazzygirl -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 12:17:35 PM)
quote: I wonder if the reason the concert was at the church was in part because the school's facilities could not accommodate the crowd. At one school where I taught music, we had to have our concerts at an area church because we had no auditorium. The church just allowed us to use the space for free. We used to hold regional competitions in choir at churches.... was easier to bus kids in there than to try and get to one specific school.

jlf1961 -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 12:22:46 PM)
As I said in another thread, I am being the devil's advocate here. Laws have been contested and overturned just on the wording. It is a common legal maneuver. It is why specific laws concerning cyber crime had to be written. In looking for the words "Separation of Church and State" in the constitution I came across a lot of right wing commentary over the importance of the simple fact that it is not in the Constitution, thus creating a loophole that can be exploited. Consider this, in this time of designer drugs, a drug cannot be considered illegal until it has been criminalized. There have been drug dealers and suppliers get off on just this technicality. The legal argument that some groups on the right are presenting is simple, "if it is not clearly stated, then it does not exist. Implying that it exists is not part of the law." And that is the argument that has gotten some people off some pretty heinous crimes through out history.

vincentML -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 1:02:55 PM)
quote: The legal argument that some groups on the right are presenting is simple, "if it is not clearly stated, then it does not exist. Implying that it exists is not part of the law." And that is the argument that has gotten some people off some pretty heinous crimes through out history. The Supreme Court has a history of case law on Seperation.

jlf1961 -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 2:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The legal argument that some groups on the right are presenting is simple, "if it is not clearly stated, then it does not exist. Implying that it exists is not part of the law." And that is the argument that has gotten some people off some pretty heinous crimes through out history. The Supreme Court has a history of case law on Seperation. Alright, then explain to me why the FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) can meet on school property?

vincentML -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 2:47:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I don't give a damn about poor people receiving medical care? My annual donation the Doctors without Borders would seem to be at odds with your outrageous lie. Good for you. Would it displease you if some of those doctors were saving lives of religious people? (thus allowing them to continue spewing their vile religious beliefs you so hate?) Be honest now. For if DWB does good works regardless, how can you discriminate as you do here without being hypocritical? Does Mercy Ships require a religious test prior to care? Your church/state thing, at least in this instance, is a smokescreen. Thishereboi is right, it's more about "a chance to score one against religion" than your self professed do-goodieness. I posted earlier in the thread that the fund raising was a good idea but the concert music choice and the involvement of the church stepped over the line. The concert could probably proceed as a cultural event if the music were inclusive of other religions and secular holiday tunes. But that is up for the Court to decide. I support Ken and anyone else who expresses concern about Seperation. To say an atheist, agnostic, or secularist is motivated by hate in speaking out on a church/state issue to my mind is similar to calling anti-semitic against anyone who speaks out against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. The "hate" card is as despicable and an affront to free speech as is the anti-semite card. Just my [sm=2cents.gif]

cordeliasub -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 3:58:11 PM)
Here is my take on separation of church and state: If it doesn't go both ways it is NOT separation. Church should stay out of "the state".....great. The state should also stay out of church. If you don't have both, you don't have separation, you have discrimination. It's like free speech. if you are only free to speak what is "accepted," it isn't free speech.

Kirata -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 5:25:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I do care that they don't force religion upon their patients. I share your sentiments, but you have not made a case that Mercy Ships is doing that. K.

Kirata -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 5:40:18 PM)
~ FR ~ Sometimes it seems to me that the level of "separation of church and state" that some people want would require that we stop paying salaries to Congressmen who are avowedly religious, or else prohibit anyone except Atheists from serving. K.

thishereboi -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 5:45:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Bullshit. You don't give a damn about the poor they were going to help. All you care about it a chance to score one against religion. I'll keep this in mind the next time you rant about how the right doesn't care about people. As for letting the charitly find a nonsectarian one. Not a lot of those around. You remind me of the girl who said she only gives money to the groups that don't have anything to do with religion, then when I asked which ones they were couldn't name one. I don't give a damn about poor people receiving medical care? My annual donation the Doctors without Borders would seem to be at odds with your outrageous lie. your annual donations have nothing to do with it. It is your words on here that speak volumes. Nonsectarian charities are plentiful, I only donate to such. Beyond Docs without borders there is also Kiva which facilitates microlaons that let poor people lift themselves out of poverty, Shelter Box provides disaster relief quickly and efficiently, Rotary International is funding polio eradication efforts, The ICRC and affiliates continue to do their good works, Child's Play provides toys and games to children's hospitals and there are many hundreds more. Where you donate money is no one elses business. If you don't like where the money is going to go, then don't buy a ticket. Obviously there are a lot of people who are fine with this or they would not have raised so much money. Are you done making shit up about people you know nothing? I am responding to your posts, if you don't want to come off as uncaring, maybe you should rethink the crap you write. You just claimed that words are more important than actions. Could you be any more hypocritical? You also claimed there were no secular charities. Confronted with a list of great charities with no religious connection you responded with a non sequitur. How precisely does my insistence on government staying out of religion make me uncaring? In reality it marks me as a patriot who believes in the ideals this nation was founded upon. I said your words said a lot about you. I didn't say they were more important that actions. I also didn't say there were no secular charaties. when you are done making shit up, let me know.

searching4mysir -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 5:51:32 PM)
I think this might be a little telling about the Founding Fathers and the "separation of Church and State": The Aitken Bible of 1782 was reviewed, approved and authorized by the US Congress. On Sundays, church services were regularly held in the Capitol Building - a practice that continued until after the Civil War. If both of those things are true (and while Wiki isn't the be-all-end-all of sources, Wiki does have those claims footnoted and sourced), what was the government doing being involved in printing Bibles and having church services in a government building if there was supposed to be this separation?

Kirata -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 6:03:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 As I said in another thread, I am being the devil's advocate here. It's worth doing. It seems to me that the clear intention of the First Amendment was to disallow Congress from enacting any law that directly or indirectly favored one religion over another or religion over non-religion. How we got from there to some of today's case law is beyond me. K.

slvemike4u -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 6:13:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FR ~ Sometimes it seems to me that the level of "separation of church and state" that some people want would require that we stop paying salaries to Congressmen who are avowedly religious, or else prohibit anyone except Atheists from serving. K. Interesting....but I would be curious to know where or what caused you to "feel" that way.I have never,nor have I ever heard anyone else ever stretch separation to such an extreme Till just now [8\|]

jlf1961 -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 6:23:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 As I said in another thread, I am being the devil's advocate here. It's worth doing. It seems to me that the clear intention of the First Amendment was to disallow Congress from enacting any law that directly or indirectly favored one religion over another or religion over non-religion. How we got from there to some of today's case law is beyond me. K. Here is something interesting I found on a website that is decidedly moderate in its positions. quote: The Bill of Rights made no provision for “separation of church and state;” on the contrary, it defended the “free exercise” of religious beliefs. Secularists cannot point to the First Amendment to justify their anti-religious campaigns. The New Moderate supports the free expression of religion in a civil and non-coercive manner, but theocracy has no place in American life. see the entire article here

tazzygirl -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 6:31:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 As I said in another thread, I am being the devil's advocate here. It's worth doing. It seems to me that the clear intention of the First Amendment was to disallow Congress from enacting any law that directly or indirectly favored one religion over another or religion over non-religion. How we got from there to some of today's case law is beyond me. K. This is what confuses me as well. If the kids consent.. and the parents consent... and the issue isnt about one or two children being penalized if they dont... This is just.. sad.

vincentML -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 6:34:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub Here is my take on separation of church and state: If it doesn't go both ways it is NOT separation. Church should stay out of "the state".....great. The state should also stay out of church. If you don't have both, you don't have separation, you have discrimination. It's like free speech. if you are only free to speak what is "accepted," it isn't free speech. Can't agree. The religious are free to express themselves and to address grievances to the government just like anyone else . . . . however, they jeopardise their tax exempt status if they engage in overt political activity, which seems rampant on both sides of the political divide. [8\|]

tazzygirl -> RE: Church and State (12/8/2012 6:38:12 PM)
They have been doing that for years. Dont see any of them losing their tax exempt status as a result.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875