Are You Tired of the Separation of Church and State?

[VanceMack]

Now your just throwing $#!t against the wall to see what sticks. Constitutional Amendments relating to separation and how it's applied, backed by SCOTUS precedents, have been pointed out to you, and you have offered nothingbto refute beyond a "nuh-uh" type response. The only one obviously struggling, or in denial here, is you.

You think citing the actual Constitution is 'throwing things against the wall"....

 

[Gordy327]

You think citing the actual Constitution is 'throwing things against the wall"....

No, only your narrow and limited interpretation of it. You still haven't cited anything which refutes the established Constitutional precedent of the separation of church and state. Until you do, you have nothing!

 

[VanceMack]

No, only your narrow and limited interpretation of it. You still haven't cited anything which refutes the established Constitutional precedent of the separation of church and state. Until you do, you have nothing!

I dont need to...because there is no such declaration of "separation of church and state" beyond what is written into the Constition. Facts refute you. Congress shall establish no official government religion. Congress shall not deny the free exercise of religion. PEOPLE are not free of persuasion in their governing...whether it is people that follow religious values or it is the rat party and their pedo-grooming marxist/commie leanings.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I dont need to...because there is no such declaration of "separation of church and state" beyond what is written into the Constition. Facts refute you. Congress shall establish no official government religion. Congress shall not deny the free exercise of religion. PEOPLE are not free of persuasion in their governing...whether it is people that follow religious values or it is the rat party and their pedo-grooming marxist/commie leanings.

Wow.

Such “independent“ stuff there.

 

[fmw]

It calls for the government being religiously neutral, which is best accomplished by separation.

I think that is an analysis, not the words of the first amendment.

 

[fmw]

The "separation of church and State" is implied by prohibiting government involvement in religion and acknowledging religious belief as an individual right.

It bans the establishment of a religion, not involvement in religion. You have inserted something that is not there.

 

[fmw]

How can a church be part of the government without that being a state religion?

It can't. Why do you ask?

 

[vegas giants]

It bans the establishment of a religion, not involvement in religion. You have inserted something that is not there.

If government is involved in a religion it is stating that is the state religion unless it gives equal time to every other religion on earth

 

[HikerGuy83]

Incorporation and the Supremacy Clause prevents the government at any level from endorsing or promoting religion.

They don't have to promote it.

They simply can't stop it in the public arena per the Constitution.

That isn't their purview.

 

[fmw]

If government is involved in a religion it is stating that is the state religion unless it gives equal time to every other religion on earth

Government gets involved in religion all the time. Have you missed the lawsuits involving interference with the free expression of religion? I don't think any other religions were involved in those lawsuits. But if there were, I can't imagine government refusing to deal with them.

 

[vegas giants]

Government gets involved in religion all the time. Have you missed the lawsuits involving interference with the free expression of religion? I don't think any other religions were involved in those lawsuits. But if there were, I can't imagine government refusing to deal with them.

But government may not endorse the expression of any religion on government property

 

[Glitch]

It bans the establishment of a religion, not involvement in religion. You have inserted something that is not there.

It prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, interfering with an already established religion, or showing either a preference or animosity toward any particular religion. Congress is not to interfere with religion, period. As Thomas Jefferson put it, there is a wall of separation between church and State.

Furthermore, since the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment and applied it to the States in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), those restrictions I listed above also apply to the State legislatures.

 

[Gordy327]

They don't have to promote it.

They should not promote it. THat's the whole point of separation.

They simply can't stop it in the public arena per the Constitution.

No one said they can. They simply cannot promote, endorse, or lead religious beliefs or functions. Individuals are perfectly free to believe or practice their religon.

That isn't their purview.

The government cannot be involved n religion period. THey must be religiously neutral.

 

[Gordy327]

I dont need to...because there is no such declaration of "separation of church and state" beyond what is written into the Constition. Facts refute you.

This is where your argument fails right out of the gate: you seem to think something must be explicitly written in the constitution for it to be legally valid or applicable, right? However, it does not. Seeing as the SCOTUS itself has affirmed separation is in the Constitution and applied to all levels of government, your argument fails on that point too!

Congress shall establish no official government religion. Congress shall not deny the free exercise of religion. PEOPLE are not free of persuasion in their governing...whether it is people that follow religious values or it is the rat party and their pedo-grooming marxist/commie leanings.

You fail to understand the difference between individuals expressing their religion vs a government institution expressing or endorsing religion. The former is generally fine. THe latter is unconstitutional.

 

[Gordy327]

I think that is an analysis, not the words of the first amendment.

It's the words of the Founding Fathers. It's also implied and also affirmed by the SCOTUS. Therefore, it does not need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution.

It bans the establishment of a religion, not involvement in religion. You have inserted something that is not there.

Wrong, separation means the government cannot become involved in religion. That's why school led prayers were deemed unconstitutional. The Lemon Test also affirms it.

Government gets involved in religion all the time. Have you missed the lawsuits involving interference with the free expression of religion? I don't think any other religions were involved in those lawsuits. But if there were, I can't imagine government refusing to deal with them.

That does not mean sanction for government to be involved in religion. When government does get involved in religion, or vice versa, there is usually legal fallout.

 

[Glitch]

They should not promote it. THat's the whole point of separation.

No one said they can. They simply cannot promote, endorse, or lead religious beliefs or functions. Individuals are perfectly free to believe or practice their religon.

The government cannot be involved n religion period. THey must be religiously neutral.

While I agree with what you said, you are talking about government restrictions here, not restrictions on individuals. Meaning that a school cannot compel or restrict a speech by a valedictorian, even if it is extremely religious in nature, without also violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. A religious speech by a valedictorian does not establish a government religion, nor is the government promoting a particular religion by allowing the valedictorian to speak freely. Once again, all those restrictions you mentioned are restrictions against government interference with religion, and does not apply to individuals.

 

[VanceMack]

This is where your argument fails right out of the gate: you seem to think something must be explicitly written in the constitution for it to be legally valid or applicable, right? However, it does not. Seeing as the SCOTUS itself has affirmed separation is in the Constitution and applied to all levels of government, your argument fails on that point too!

You fail to understand the difference between individuals expressing their religion vs a government institution expressing or endorsing religion. The former is generally fine. THe latter is unconstitutional.

Again...you are doing nothing more than flailing. All that is written in the Constitution is all that is valid. Congress shall establish no official religion. Congress shall not deny the free practice of religion. Every authority and rule is contained in that very succinct and clear statement.

 

[Gordy327]

While I agree with what you said, you are talking about government restrictions here, not restrictions on individuals.

Yes, the Constitution, including separation, applies to all levels of government.

Meaning that a school cannot compel or restrict a speech by a valedictorian, even if it is extremely religious in nature, without also violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Of course not. Separation does not apply to individuals students. But it does apply to school staff. People do not to understand the distinction.

A religious speech by a valedictorian does not establish a government religion, nor is the government promoting a particular religion by allowing the valedictorian to speak freely. Once again, all those restrictions you mentioned are restrictions against government interference with religion, and does not apply to individuals.

See previous statement.

 

[Gordy327]

Again...you are doing nothing more than flailing. All that is written in the Constitution is all that is valid. Congress shall establish no official religion. Congress shall not deny the free practice of religion. Every authority and rule is contained in that very succinct and clear statement.

Constitutional interpretations by the SCOTUS and related legal precedents is also valid. Therefore, separation is valid and constitutional. You seem unable to grasp that simple fact.

 

[Glitch]

Again...you are doing nothing more than flailing. All that is written in the Constitution is all that is valid. Congress shall establish no official religion. Congress shall not deny the free practice of religion. Every authority and rule is contained in that very succinct and clear statement.

The Fourteenth Amendment also applied those congressional restrictions to the State legislatures in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

 

[VanceMack]

The Fourteenth Amendment also applied those congressional restrictions to the State legislatures in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Its a shame leftists dont recognize that where the 2nd Amendment is concerned.

 

[Glitch]

Its a shame leftists dont recognize that where the 2nd Amendment is concerned.

Leftist filth don't recognize any rights. Thankfully the Supreme Court did when they applied the Second Amendment to the States in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Why do you think so many States have suddenly become "constitutional carry" States since 2010? Any State that requires a permit or license to exercise an individual right is infringing upon that right.

 

[fmw]

It's the words of the Founding Fathers. It's also implied and also affirmed by the SCOTUS. Therefore, it does not need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Yes implications and analyses by the supreme court are exactly the problem.

Wrong, separation means the government cannot become involved in religion. That's why school led prayers were deemed unconstitutional. The Lemon Test also affirms it.

No need to repeat myself.

That does not mean sanction for government to be involved in religion. When government does get involved in religion, or vice versa, there is usually legal fallout.

I agree. That is true most of the time.

 

[fmw]

It prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, interfering with an already established religion, or showing either a preference or animosity toward any particular religion. Congress is not to interfere with religion, period. As Thomas Jefferson put it, there is a wall of separation between church and State.

And yet government does these things - not often of course - but when it suits the needs of the political establishment.

Furthermore, since the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment and applied it to the States in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), those restrictions I listed above also apply to the State legislatures.

That is true. The constitution applies to all government in the U.S.

 

[fmw]

But government may not endorse the expression of any religion on government property

"In god we trust." Only religions have gods.