Erosion of Separation of Church and State

Erosion of Separation of Church and State (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pinkee -> Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 5:31:12 AM)
Was i asleep when another amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed? The First Amendment, provision VI, provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free excersize thereof." The phrase "separation of church and state" arises from U.S. Supreme Court decisions dating back to 1878. According to the NY Times, since 1989 alone 200 Federal laws have been passed granting religious groups and their adherents special priviledges or exempting them from generally applicable law. This figure does not include Federal regulations, or state and local laws/ordinances and regulations. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html?th8emc=th Religious organisations enjoy exemptions from generally applicable employment discrimination laws, licensing regulations, etc. Unlike a non-profit organization, religious organisations are not required to file annual informational returns with the IRS (such informational returns are made public). These special priviledges and exemptions apply not only to a church's worship and religious instruction activities, but also to church-run businesses such as day care centers, fitness centers, etc. i had a sense of settled law regarding "separation of church and state" as U.S. Supreme Court decisions were handed down, prohibiting school prayer, Christian imagery in court rooms and on governmental propety, etc. i had no idea the religious right had made such inroads. Evidentially, the power of this political action group has risen to the point where our Federal senators and representatives fear opposing any legislation it proposes. There is an organisation which watch-dogs these erosive (corrisive?) laws and regulations. www.theocracywatch.org IMO, these laws and regulations are unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately. They heavily favor the Christian religion, to the detriment of Judaism, Islam, and other religions. The religious right has all but bankrupted the Republican Party, which i personally find despicable. i worry about the coming U.S. Supreme Court session and the Bush Justice appointees. i am concerned about the possibility of decisions which further erode privacy rights, etc. Now, i am also worried about the possibility of decisions supporting the religious right. What is Y/your opinion on the matter? pinkee

Kinkerkink -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 5:51:08 AM)
Nice way to start a flaming post. <<IMO, these laws and regulations are unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately. They heavily favor the Christian religion, to the detriment of Judaism, Islam, and other religions. The religious right has all but bankrupted the Republican Party, which i personally find despicable. >> In case anyone did not notice....the Constitution and it's ammendments are not designed to support nor encourage any particular religious belief. Before we make such judgements, we should consider those who may choose Islam, or Mormonism, or paganism, or any other particular belief system which is afforded those same protections by the Constitution and it's ammendments. To the contrary, the protections are in place specifically to avoid a theocracy. Those who doubt so would be well advised to make a deeper study of British history from about 1300 forward (please forgive me for generalizing the date). As far as bankrupting politicians....it takes very little concentrated effort to reveal that the great majority of both parties are morally bankrupt, standing only for whatever will keep them in power and control. Do not misunderstand me...I vote in every election. But those that have no considered principles and merely bend with the prevailing wind find no favor with me and that applies to both major parties. I am guessing that the OP is not a registered Republican, so the outrage over the supposed "bankrupting" is frivolous at best. A very nice attempt at rhetoric however.

sharainks -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 7:26:58 AM)
The problem I have with what is going on right now is that for the last several elections it appears that the Republican party in particular tends to follow the dictates of the religious right. It leaves those of us who aren't in that very vocal minority feeling somewhat disenfranchised. Myself, I don't care for having someone else's morality pushed on me. I don't care to have their morality become my only option. I think the broad statements about "family values" is inane. The US is too diverse to think that the family values of the Christian fanatics are the only ones that matter. I will continue to believe that part of the idea of freedom of religion is also freedom from religion if that is what one chooses.

juliaoceania -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 8:29:17 AM)
I do not agree with repealing a churches tax exempt status. This is a long held tradition within American society, we do not tax religions. Most churches are not rich, do not run fitness clubs, and if we start looking at those that do then we have to make every church report everything from baked goods sales to rumage sales... I do not think it is necessary Political action commitees are not backed by churches directly, for if they were the church would lose its tax exempt status. Churches are not allowed to raise money for candidate or advocate voting for candidates at services.. and some churches have lost their tax exemptions from doing this.. Although I could be mistaken about that, I have heard squaking about this on NPR I believe.

pinkee -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 10:02:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kinkerkink Nice way to start a flaming post. <<IMO, these laws and regulations are unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately. They heavily favor the Christian religion, to the detriment of Judaism, Islam, and other religions. The religious right has all but bankrupted the Republican Party, which i personally find despicable. >> In case anyone did not notice....the Constitution and it's ammendments are not designed to support nor encourage any particular religious belief. Before we make such judgements, we should consider those who may choose Islam, or Mormonism, or paganism, or any other particular belief system which is afforded those same protections by the Constitution and it's ammendments. To the contrary, the protections are in place specifically to avoid a theocracy. Those who doubt so would be well advised to make a deeper study of British history from about 1300 forward (please forgive me for generalizing the date). As far as bankrupting politicians....it takes very little concentrated effort to reveal that the great majority of both parties are morally bankrupt, standing only for whatever will keep them in power and control. Do not misunderstand me...I vote in every election. But those that have no considered principles and merely bend with the prevailing wind find no favor with me and that applies to both major parties. I am guessing that the OP is not a registered Republican, so the outrage over the supposed "bankrupting" is frivolous at best. A very nice attempt at rhetoric however. Maybe i am confused, but i thought the word "flaming" on these forums meant "insulting a particular poster". i did not do so. For informational purposes, i am a devote Catholic/Christian as well as a registered Republican of long standing. i was not writing rhetoric. Presumably, You used this word in its secondary meaning: "insincere or grandiloquent language". Merriam Webster's 11th College Dictionary. On the contrary, i feel strongly -- as You appear to do -- that any movement by this country towards a Christian theocracy is both highly undesirable and unconstitutional. It is difficult for me to understand why You both criticised and agreed with what i wrote in the Op. pinkee

pinkee -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 10:23:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not agree with repealing a churches tax exempt status. This is a long held tradition within American society, we do not tax religions. Most churches are not rich, do not run fitness clubs, and if we start looking at those that do then we have to make every church report everything from baked goods sales to rumage sales... I do not think it is necessary Political action commitees are not backed by churches directly, for if they were the church would lose its tax exempt status. Churches are not allowed to raise money for candidate or advocate voting for candidates at services.. and some churches have lost their tax exemptions from doing this.. Although I could be mistaken about that, I have heard squaking about this on NPR I believe. juliaoceania, i never said i thought religious organisations should be taxed. Instead, what i did say was that -- unlike any other form of tax-exempt organisation -- religious organisations are not required to file informational returns annually with the IRS, for public scrutiny. There are laws and regulations as to what constitutes a "church or religious organisation" for purposes of tax exemption. i believe there are some limitations on what income-producing activities an entity may engage in before it loses its status as a "church" for tax purposes. Such laws and regulations are in place to prevent abuse, e.g., an individual obtaining a "religious degree" from an internet site for a minor fee, then claiming all his income is tax-exempt. It is also true that a "church or religious organisation" is limited under the tax code as to direct participation in political affairs. Again, these laws and regulations are meant to prevent abuse of the campaign contribution laws. However, i have sat through many a homily regarding for whom i should vote, etc. and there is little doubt that churches and religious organisations at least pressure their adherents to be politically active, particularly the "religious right". i can't speak to what it is like where you live, but here, the churches, synagogues and mosques generally run food banks, day care centers, homeless shelters, and other activites not directly related to worship or religious instruction. It was the NY Times article, not i, which stated the addition of fitness centers by religious organisations was becoming more common. i included a link to the article so that members could read it and form T/their own opinions. IMHO the NY Times is a more reliable news source than NPR, but hey, that's just me. pinkee

juliaoceania -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 12:19:45 PM)
quote: It is also true that a "church or religious organisation" is limited under the tax code as to direct participation in political affairs. Again, these laws and regulations are meant to prevent abuse of the campaign contribution laws. However, i have sat through many a homily regarding for whom i should vote, etc. and there is little doubt that churches and religious organisations at least pressure their adherents to be politically active, particularly the "religious right". This is true, they also hand out voter handbooks that tell where candidates stand on certain key "Christian" positions... such as stem cell research/abortion and that sort of thing... basically it is the same as advocating a candidate and that should be stopped, and perhaps could be if more and more adherents to certain religions reported such things... in fact if someone wanted to "bust" Christian Coalition sorts they could videotape or audio tape sermons that advocated politically and perhaps turn these in to whatever government agency follows these things up. I do know that some churches have lost their tax exempt status because of these things in the past was my point.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 12:38:05 PM)
It's much older than that, pinkee. Thomas Jefferson used the phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802. James Madison and other Founding Fathers frequently referred to the idea as well. Edited to add: OK, what the fuck is going on? It won't let me post the link to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. It just converts the URL to a string of asterisks. It's a U.S. government website (Library of Congress online), so why is Collarme censoring it? Bizarre. Edited to add again: OK, I circumvented the problem by creating a dummy URL that will direct you to the Library of Congress website. Still odd that we can't post links to government websites. quote: ORIGINAL: pinkee The phrase "separation of church and state" arises from U.S. Supreme Court decisions dating back to 1878.

WyrdRich -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 12:46:20 PM)
It isn't confined to the 'religious right.' Inner city churches frequently provide a forum for Democrats and are as active as the law allows (being nice here) in supporting liberal candidates. It's one of those tricky, gray areas in my opinion. Do we want a Government that can tell churches what they can and cannot say?

popeye1250 -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 1:49:57 PM)
L&M, I had no problem with that link. Pinkee, I agree with you about "flaming" being insulting a particular poster in the T.O.S. I've been flamed by a number of members in here for my beliefs as well. Instead of concentrating on the argument some prefer an ad hominem attack. As for prayer in public schools I don't see how that's "establishing a religion." (Which Religion?) Far more dangerous in my opinion is the fact that there is no "seperation" of Big Business and state. Big business gets whatever they want and most if not all of the time it is injurious to The People-i.e. "NAFTA" The very fact that all those "Lobbyists" on "K" street in Washington even exist should be illegal. Plus we have all those special interest groups (religious ones included) The S.I.G's and Lobbyists are the ones OUR lawmakers are listening to, not us! (Lobbyists know OUR legislators on a first name basis, have dinner with them, take trips with them! When's the last time you played golf with your congressman or senator?) Until we get Republicans and Democrats both out of power I don't think anything is going to change. The Taxpayers, Citizens and Voters in this country are being RAPED!

Lordandmaster -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 1:52:41 PM)
I had to put it in with a dummy URL because the straightforward URL to the Library of Congress website won't appear on Collarme. It just appears as a string of asterisks. For some reason, it's being automatically censored. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 L&M, I had no problem with that link.

pinkee -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 1:52:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich It isn't confined to the 'religious right.' Inner city churches frequently provide a forum for Democrats and are as active as the law allows (being nice here) in supporting liberal candidates. It's one of those tricky, gray areas in my opinion. Do we want a Government that can tell churches what they can and cannot say? The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech of the people or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Homilies, liturgy and dogma regarding political matters are protected speech. Any gathering of religious adherents is (generally) protected peaceable assemblage. The religious organisations in Black communities have traditionally served as a power base for the Black Caucus at both the state and Federal levels. People of other races running for political office have also found support from these organisations where their positions were well-received by the Black community at large. IMO, this activity is not on a par with the activites of the religious right, nor the political shenanigans of ward healers in various states, past and present. pinkee

LadyEllen -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 2:25:55 PM)
Its always seemed odd to me, to say that one's religious outlook should not have an effect on one's political choices. But what's more odd to me, is that from the same religion, following the same messiah and message, one can derive both left wing and right wing political outlooks and choices, even to extremes on both sides. Even more odd to me, given the above, is why anyone would choose to listen to what some religious organisation says is the correct political choice? If people are not mature enough to make up their own minds, both on their religious view and thence their political aspirations, and from knowing their own minds be able to make their own choices regardless of how unpopular their choice is, then they will be subject to others' influence, and thereby betray their own inadequacies and risk only their own soul, should they have chosen the wrong advice. I seem to remember some carpenter who had a different view on things. Very few agreed with him, and eventually his unpopularity proved his downfall. Still, it seemed in the end, he might have been more correct than his detractors would have had it. If a church does not teach the value of thinking for oneself, and coming to believe based on one's own conscience, rather than on the say so of the majority or some religious leader, then that church is a false church, and all that comes from it, including any political counsel, will also be false. "By their deeds shall ye know them"............. and ............"Many shall come in my name.....", spring to mind. E

meatcleaver -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 2:42:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen If a church does not teach the value of thinking for oneself, and coming to believe based on one's own conscience, rather than on the say so of the majority or some religious leader, then that church is a false church, and all that comes from it, including any political counsel, will also be false. "By their deeds shall ye know them"............. and ............"Many shall come in my name.....", spring to mind. It seems to me the whole point of religion is control which is why politicians use it. A friend whose father died when he was young said that all through his childhood his mother kept control by saying his father wouldn't approve. At a certain age it dawned on him that his father wasn't around so he couldn't be asked if he approved of anything or not, it was his mother that controled his father's approval and so it is with religion, the priests, rabbis and imans control god's approval.

popeye1250 -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 2:57:51 PM)
I'm a transplant to "The South" from New England. It's funny to hear people say; "The Religeous Right" and drive by Baptist and other churches down here and see political signs for Democrats along the side of the road! lol Why do people blindly assume that anyone who's "religeous" is from "The Right?" What would you call (those) people," The Religeous Left?" There seem to be a lot of them here abouts but they don't seem to get any Press. Are people saying that those on "the left" (aren't) religeous? If you joined "the left" would you have to give up your religeon? Or maybe it'd be against the rules to talk about it?

maybemaybenot -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 5:26:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I'm a transplant to "The South" from New England. It's funny to hear people say; "The Religeous Right" and drive by Baptist and other churches down here and see political signs for Democrats along the side of the road! lol Why do people blindly assume that anyone who's "religeous" is from "The Right?" What would you call (those) people," The Religeous Left?" There seem to be a lot of them here abouts but they don't seem to get any Press. Are people saying that those on "the left" (aren't) religeous? If you joined "the left" would you have to give up your religeon? Or maybe it'd be against the rules to talk about it? LMAO, popeye.. and ohhhh so very true. Some of the most religious people I know stand on the left side of the fence. Didn't Bill Clinton frequent AME churches and invite evangelical ministers to the White House every time something embarrassing came up? How many newsclips of Bill and Hilary going into an AME or Black Baptist church did we suffer in the Clinton years ? My favorite was the one immediately after he ammended his " I never slept with that women" statement and admitted to his philandering. He and Hilary, with Chelsea in tow presenting the poius family values. I'm not Clinton bashing, just pointing out the difference. When Bill goes to church.. it's spiritual and touching.. when some one on the right goes to church it's political manuevering. I suspect we will be privvy to Hilary going to some evangelical church during the next campaign and not a negative comment will be made. mbmbn

maybemaybenot -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 5:47:31 PM)
pinkee: I generally don't do the religious/political threads but popeye inspired me.. lol Anyhoo.. after my above post I Googled Clinton and the AME church for giggles.. guess what I found? Pres. Clinton gave a political speech at an AME church service and the situation was sent for investigation to the IRS. The Rev. promised not to use his pulpit for political purpoises any more and the issue was over and done with. The most interesting part for me tho is further down the article where it says it is a 50/50 split on Dems and Reps religous affiliations for political promotion. It's an interesting read. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200309%5CNAT20030918a.html mbmbn

LadyEllen -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 5:57:04 PM)
Thats the point isnt it? If this is one religion, with one messiah and one message, which is written down in one book which is common to all churches - then how can it be that two very different political views and sets of aspirations can arise from it? For me, its very simple. Read the beatitudes at the start of the Gospel of Matthew, and there you will see what Jesus taught as the right values for his followers. From such values, one might deduce that one could form a political agenda to accomplish the aims of those right values. How on earth one could come to deduce the political agenda being pursued by the present administration, from what Jesus is reported to have taught as the right values, I fail to understand. E

Lordandmaster -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 6:01:33 PM)
Uh huh, and what about those of us who don't believe that the goals of government are to be found in the Gospel of Matthew? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen For me, its very simple. Read the beatitudes at the start of the Gospel of Matthew, and there you will see what Jesus taught as the right values for his followers. From such values, one might deduce that one could form a political agenda to accomplish the aims of those right values.

LadyEllen -> RE: Erosion of Separation of Church and State (10/8/2006 6:05:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Uh huh, and what about those of us who don't believe that the goals of government are to be found in the Gospel of Matthew? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen For me, its very simple. Read the beatitudes at the start of the Gospel of Matthew, and there you will see what Jesus taught as the right values for his followers. From such values, one might deduce that one could form a political agenda to accomplish the aims of those right values. Well, for those of us who are not Christian, we have a problem dont we? Because the majority religion is Christianity, the politicians all seek that vote by pretending to be its natural representative. E

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875