RE: Seperation church and state

RE: Seperation church and state (Full Version)

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

Message

DomKen -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 6:52:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Princess2086 It was for thoses reasons we have Seperation of Church and State, not to keep ministers out of public schools. Yes it is. The fact is that there are numerous statements by the Founders making clear the establishment clause, free exercise clause and the ban on religious tests together create a wall between all reigions and all state activities. A minister going into a public school and preaching, which is what happened hear, is clearly across both the line the Founders would have recognized and fails the Lemon test.

Kirata -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 6:59:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen A minister going into a public school and preaching, which is what happened hear, is clearly across both the line the Founders would have recognized and fails the Lemon test. I have to agree with you there. But those same Founders opened sessions of Congress with a prayer. So what do you think they meant by "religion"? K.

DomKen -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 7:02:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr When you start giving me interpretations, you start going into "I wish this were the way it is" land. Yes, Jefferson interpretted the first amendment to be a "seperation of church and state" (when he was writing to a fundementalist minister that wanted Jefferson to get the state of {?}Massachusetts {?} to stop "harrassing" his particular sect). It wasn't a fundamentalist minister. It was, an at the time, very liberal group of Baptist ministers in Connecticut, which still made Anglicalism the state religion and supported it with taxes. They were not being harassed by the state government. They didn't like their members being taxed to support a state religion and they were concerned that the state constitution did not protect religious liberty (before the 14th amendment the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states). And actually Jefferson wrote the letter to support the Baptists not to deny them http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html You can get all pissy about the words not being in the Constitution but the concept is and has been supported by 2 centuries of jurisprudence.

DomKen -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 7:08:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen A minister going into a public school and preaching, which is what happened hear, is clearly across both the line the Founders would have recognized and fails the Lemon test. I have to agree with you there. But those same Founders opened sessions of Congress with a prayer. So what do you think they meant by "religion"? I know some were bothered by it, Madison famously opposed having military chaplains, but I think as long as the prayer was a sort of generic christian thing they thought it was ok. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

Edwynn -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 7:16:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Could you, please, show me where "seperation of church and state" appears in our constitution? Peace and comfort, Michael It's not written in those words in the Constitution, but Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the Constitution and the main author of The Declaration of Independence, used those words to clearly express his and the other authors' meaning and intent in that section of the first amendment. -Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.- This clearly and unmistakably says that religion is entitled to its opinion, but in no way shall have any influence whatsoever upon government, or its actions, anymore than government can dictate the opinions of any religion. No Anglican state religion for the USA, TVM, nor Methodist or Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian or any other, nor any of their efforts to influence the law-making process in any way. Government enforcement, or even the least consideration, of religious dictates of any sort were (and still are) clearly and specifically prohibited.

Kirata -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 7:49:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn -Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.- This clearly and unmistakably says that religion is entitled to its opinion, but in no way shall have any influence whatsoever upon government, or its actions, anymore than government can dictate the opinions of any religion. Well, no. You are interpreting Jefferson's words to mean something they "clearly and unmistakably" do not say. The quote says only that it is not within the legitimate powers of government to enact into law an opinion on the matter of in which God an individual should believe. K.

Edwynn -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 7:54:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The quote says only that it is not within the legitimate powers of government to enact into law an opinion on the matter of in which God an individual should believe. K. Thanks for that embellishment.

Kirata -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 8:03:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The quote says only that it is not within the legitimate powers of government to enact into law an opinion on the matter of in which God an individual should believe. Thanks for that embellishment. An embellishment is a fictious addition. That was a subtraction of one. K.

Edwynn -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 8:15:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata But those same Founders opened sessions of Congress with a prayer. So what do you think they meant by "religion"? K. Aw heck, after a millenia and a half of various and sundry Crusades, such a multitude of thirty-year wars, Constantine, Clovis, Divine Rights of Kings, etc., ... old habits are kind of hard to break all at once. Or we could adduce this as evidence that Burt Bacharach and Hal David were deeply religious men.

Edwynn -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 8:19:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata An embellishment is a fictious addition. That was a subtraction of one. K. Read the first definition. Which is how a person with adequate comprehension skills would have interpreted it in the sentence used, based on context, etc.

Kirata -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 8:23:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata But those same Founders opened sessions of Congress with a prayer. So what do you think they meant by "religion"? Aw heck, after a millenia and a half of various and sundry Crusades, such a multitude of thirty-year wars, Constantine, Clovis, Divine Rights of Kings, etc., ... old habits are kind of hard to break all at once. I didn't ask what you mean by religion. K.

Kirata -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 8:32:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Read the first definition. Which is how a person with adequate comprehension skills would have interpreted it in the sentence used, based on context, etc. I think I picked the right definition, but thanks anyway. K.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 8:56:55 AM)
In other words you are ignoring any and all evidence that proves you wrong. Snore. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr This is about as close to the correct answer as we're going to get. quote: ORIGINAL: Princess2086 I was reading some of the above posts, and I wanted to use my history degree. Seperation of Church and State, does not mean a lack of religion in politics or the removal of religion from goverment backed programs ( ie. Schools, courthouses, afterschool programs, State Capital Buildings). What Seperation of Church and State means is that no Federal Religion will be established, such as the Church of England. That no one will be denined the rights of an American Citizen because of his/her religion. In 1789, when our consituion was written, it was illegal for a Catholic to hold a goverment job in England. The Sepetatists fled England in fear of imprisonment. Several of our states were established by people fleeing England because they did not believe in the right religion. It was for thoses reasons we have Seperation of Church and State, not to keep ministers out of public schools. It's pretty funny, watching the usual suspects try to contort and twist and put that phrase into the constitution when it isn't there, at all. You can give me all the opinion articles from wikipedia that you want, telling us that that is the interpretation but the phrase DOES NOT EXIST IN THE US CONSTITUTION. When you start giving me interpretations, you start going into "I wish this were the way it is" land. Yes, Jefferson interpretted the first amendment to be a "seperation of church and state" (when he was writing to a fundementalist minister that wanted Jefferson to get the state of {?}Massachusetts {?} to stop "harrassing" his particular sect). Jefferson wrote that phrase as a way of saying: "The federal government is not going to get involved in a pissing contest between your religion and the state in which you live". It is fun to watch the usual suspects try to convince themselves that they're right, even though the phrase is NOT in our constitution. It's also fun to see the passive-agressive behaviors that some need to employ. I have another candidate for oblivion, as a result. Peace and comfort, Michael

Powergamz1 -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 10:22:03 AM)
That is a common myth. Trouble is that the verb 'Establish' isn't written in the First Amendment. The noun '(an) establishment' is. Likewise, the verb which acts on that noun is 'respecting', not creating. And contrary to popular belief, just because 2 words share some letters, doesn't mean that they are always interchangeable. And the notion that the 1st only applies to the US Congress is equally incorrect. In the real world, the First Amendment keeps any branch of government from 'respecting' (as in honoring, upholding, revering, elevating to special status, or accommodating) an establishment* of* (as in church, temple, group, corporation, chartered entity, scripture, doctrine, creed, or code.) religion (faith based worship system focused on the concept of a higher power). And that determination is made by the only people on the planet invested with the power to do so by the US Constitution in Art. III sec.2. No one has the authority to change that. Not semanticists, nor sovereign citizens, not sophists, nor Storm Front... no one. quote: ORIGINAL: Princess2086 I was reading some of the above posts, and I wanted to use my history degree. Seperation of Church and State, does not mean a lack of religion in politics or the removal of religion from goverment backed programs ( ie. Schools, courthouses, afterschool programs, State Capital Buildings). What Seperation of Church and State means is that no Federal Religion will be established, such as the Church of England. That no one will be denined the rights of an American Citizen because of his/her religion. In 1789, when our consituion was written, it was illegal for a Catholic to hold a goverment job in England. The Sepetatists fled England in fear of imprisonment. Several of our states were established by people fleeing England because they did not believe in the right religion. It was for thoses reasons we have Seperation of Church and State, not to keep ministers out of public schools.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 12:22:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 In other words you are ignoring any and all evidence that proves you wrong. Snore. Two in less than 24 hours; there truly IS a God! No, Power, I was waiting for someone to show me where the phrase appeared in the constitution which was what I asked. No one has been able to do that. Your snide little post has sent you were the passive-agressive went. We're done here, "sir".

MrRodgers -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 7:15:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Could you, please, show me where "seperation of church and state" appears in our constitution? Peace and comfort, Michael When the same argument arises on other issues guns being one that fails to articulate a constitutional purity, the right constantly asks people to refer to say for example the Federalist papers or other written commentary of the time to justify straying from the exact wording of law or the constitution. This is often in an attempt to justify law as based on 'intent' of the law. Thomas Jefferson and others constantly referred to laws forbidding govt. establishment of religion, were meant to codify or the legal intent for a...'separation of church and state.'

Hillwilliam -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 8:43:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 In other words you are ignoring any and all evidence that proves you wrong. Snore. Two in less than 24 hours; there truly IS a God! No, Power, I was waiting for someone to show me where the phrase appeared in the constitution which was what I asked. No one has been able to do that. Your snide little post has sent you were the passive-agressive went. We're done here, "sir". Maybe you missed the first 2 times I asked so I'll ask you this question a third time. Are you OK with someone coming into your childs school paid or by the state and without your knowlede or permission attempting to convert your child to their religion? What if the guest is a Mullah? As for your insistence that "Separation of Church and state" does not exist in that EXACT wording in the Constitution, I submit that the second says "Right to bear arms" not "Right to bear FIREARMS" Will you be happy if some nut judge decides that means we're all OK with a spear and atlatl or a pocketknife. Those are legally arms. Here are the words in question "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" "Free exercise thereof" are important words. That means the government cannot prevent me from the "Free exercise thereof" of MY religion. Sending someone into the schools at government expense to attempt to convert my children against my wishes and without my knowledge is iterfering with the "Free Exercise Thereof" of my religion (or lack of same). It's not complicated. Stop quoting the guy you hear on the radio and think for yourself.

Edwynn -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 10:17:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 In other words you are ignoring any and all evidence that proves you wrong. Snore. Two in less than 24 hours; there truly IS a God! No, Power, I was waiting for someone to show me where the phrase appeared in the constitution which was what I asked. No one has been able to do that. Your snide little post has sent you were the passive-agressive went. We're done here, "sir". A gas can says "flamable" on it. Somebody says "If you put a lit match to it, it will ignite." And all you can say is "I'm still waiting for someone to show me just where on that gas can it says 'If you put a lit match to it, it will ignite.' No one has been able to do that."

DaddySatyr -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/27/2013 10:26:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Could you, please, show me where "seperation of church and state" appears in our constitution? Peace and comfort, Michael When the same argument arises on other issues guns being one that fails to articulate a constitutional purity, the right constantly asks people to refer to say for example the Federalist papers or other written commentary of the time to justify straying from the exact wording of law or the constitution. This is often in an attempt to justify law as based on 'intent' of the law. Thomas Jefferson and others constantly referred to laws forbidding govt. establishment of religion, were meant to codify or the legal intent for a...'separation of church and state.' I do not disagree that intent should be taken into account in order to interpret the law. I just find it amusing that the phrase is often attributed to the constitution and yet, it does not exist there. Now, if we're talking about interpretations of laws and disagreeing with those interpretations; isn't that what we do here, essentially? Of course it is and that's all well and good. I was just trying to bring out that what we are talking about is an *interpretation* (someone's opinion) of what was actually written; *NOT* "chiseled in stone". Maybe ... just maybe I was trying to point out the very same hypocrisy that you did (from the other side of the argument, of course)? It's okay. In the last five days, my eyes have been opened up to a few things that are facacta, around here. I enjoy the education I receive, here. Peace and comfort, Michael

egern -> RE: Seperation church and state (4/28/2013 4:13:42 AM)
The reason I posted this was that in my reading about the old controversies concerning evolution and intelligent design/creationism, a conflict which is still going on today. I got the impression, when reading about court cases, that there was this separation state and church. More recent: "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.[1] In October 2004 the Dover Area School District changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People was to be used as a reference book.[2] The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District I guess I got it wrong, but still wonder how it is ok for religion to get into the curriculum or, as here, a head of a school can run it along his own personal religious lines. It is hard to understand, maybe because I have a non-religious cultural back ground.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625