• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pardon me 4 asking?

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have a question that may sound stupid?
:3oops:
"Has anyone actually found the qoute in the Constitution where 'Separation of Church and State' is stated literally or implied?"

No :spin: :rofl

Save that 4 your news channell! :lol:
 

IamMrRodgers

New member
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Seperation of church in state was not found in the constitution because it isnt there it is from a personal letter which Jefferson wrote to a church.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Theocratic Governments are terrible, there is absolutely no reason for any government to become strictly Theocratic. The horrors and discrimination caused by an event like that is undeniable.

I personally think State and Church are rightfully separated, when you want a free country.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
stsburns said:
I have a question that may sound stupid?
:3oops:
"Has anyone actually found the qoute in the Constitution where 'Separation of Church and State' is stated literally or implied?"
Yes, the first amendment, congress shall make no law respecting an estabishment of religion.

Government and religious organizations should not mix in any official capacity. And it remains curious to me that conservatives of religious faith would want government to be involved in thier religious faith in any way shape or form. They should be the ones demanding the seperation.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
IamMrRodgers said:
Seperation of church in state was not found in the constitution because it isnt there it is from a personal letter which Jefferson wrote to a church.
I wouldn't call it a personal letter since he wrote it as President of the United States.


Here's the letter sent by Danbury
The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut assembled October 7, 1801 to Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less costly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty - That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and Individuals - That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of Civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But, Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our infant charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favor granted, and not as inalienable rights: And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power and gain under the pretence of government and Religion should reproach their fellow man - should Reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of Religion, Law and good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the Earth.

Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a cause of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God Strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain, and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

The Committee
Neh. Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson
Or the full unedited version:

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

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 and 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 eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."]

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Stinger,


Yes, the first amendment, congress shall make no law respecting an estabishment of religion.

Government and religious organizations should not mix in any official capacity. And it remains curious to me that conservatives of religious faith would want government to be involved in thier religious faith in any way shape or form. They should be the ones demanding the seperation.
Actually, Conservative or Liberal, you shouldn't :spin: it. Also their is a qoute that the government connot promote secularism either. :mrgreen:
 

bellisaurius

New member
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
chicago
By secularism do you mean atheism? Then I agree. But if it means "concerned about the material, not concerning spiritual or religious," then I can't see how a government could run.

However, I don't see any proatheistic governmental actions. Many that are material in nature and avoiding of the spiritual, but not against religion and belief. For example, a lack of prayer in schools isn't asking children not to believe in G_d, but rather not to involve a religion in a government funded function.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
bellisaurius,

"However, I don't see any proatheistic governmental actions. Many that are material in nature and avoiding of the spiritual, but not against religion and belief. For example, a lack of prayer in schools isn't asking children not to believe in G_d, but rather not to involve a religion in a government funded function."

Good Point!

But why are you affraid to say GOD! Just curious?
 

bellisaurius

New member
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
chicago
Well, to say the full name would be direspectful. Sort of taking the lord's name in vain. I have similar feelings about icons like crosses and such. It just feels off.

Probably just a conceit of some sort, considering I'm a pantheist at best when it comes to divine questions.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
stsburns said:
Actually, Conservative or Liberal, you shouldn't spin it. Also their is a qoute that the government connot promote secularism either.
It can't do either. Period. It can't say god exists or doesn't exist. Technically, atheism is a religion and cannot be promoted just like Christianity can't be.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Quote:
Yes, the first amendment, congress shall make no law respecting an estabishment of religion.

Government and religious organizations should not mix in any official capacity. And it remains curious to me that conservatives of religious faith would want government to be involved in thier religious faith in any way shape or form. They should be the ones demanding the seperation.


stsburns said:
Stinger,




Actually, Conservative or Liberal, you shouldn't :spin: it. :mrgreen:
What spin?
Also their is a qoute that the government connot promote secularism either.
Correct, neither should be promoted, sanctioned or sponsored.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ShamMol said:
Technically, atheism is a religion and cannot be promoted just like Christianity can't be.
Technically it is not, it is merely a descriptive term for someone who does not believe in supernatural beings. And quite frankly it only exist for the convience of people of faith in such things. I don't really think of myself as "an atheist" I simply don't believe in supernatural gods, no labels are needed for that just as no lable is needed for someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

re·li·gion Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ShamMol said:
Technically, atheism is a religion...
I'd like to know what odd definition of 'religion' you're using here.
Off-hand, it seems that you have so broadened the definition of 'religion' as to diminish the word's capacity for meaning. Yet, I could be mistaken.
Would you please expound and explain?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Simon W. Moon said:
I'd like to know what odd definition of 'religion' you're using here.
Off-hand, it seems that you have so broadened the definition of 'religion' as to diminish the word's capacity for meaning. Yet, I could be mistaken.
Would you please expound and explain?
It is listed as an official religion in many countries, so, that is why I said technically it is a religion. I personally do not consider it a religion, I consider it a thought process, but hey, I consider most religions that and do not think that religion itself is religion, but merely a way to propagandize to the masses...me and my agnosticism....

Your answer: In countries, it is listed as a religion, so therefore, it is considered a religion, much as Jedi Knight is in the UK.
 

bellisaurius

New member
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
chicago
Atheism proper seems to meet two of the definitions for religion:

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I'd like to stress the belief angle because the phrase "I simply don't believe" implies a belief in the non-existance of supernatural forces, which is a belief in a principle. To put it more simply, one must believe that there is absolutely nothing to believe.

Agnostisim would be a closer approximation to a lack of religion. It implies there may or may not be supernatural beings. (note, strict agnosticism would approach a belief system since one has to believe that G_d can neither be proven or disproven).

This all sounds a bit solipsistic, but from the outside, that's how it looks.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Fantasea said:
Technically, that is quite a stretch.
nonetheless a truth. governments acknowledge it as a religion and it is a belief, albeit a non-belief.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
ShamMol said:
nonetheless a truth. governments acknowledge it as a religion and it is a belief, albeit a non-belief.
And, how do the athiests view it?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Fantasea said:
And, how do the athiests view it?
View what? I hope you aren't referring to me, because I am not an atheist. I am a Deist/Agnostic. I can't classify as either because my beliefs co-mingle.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
ShamMol said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
And, how do the athiests view it?
View what? I hope you aren't referring to me, because I am not an atheist. I am a Deist/Agnostic. I can't classify as either because my beliefs co-mingle.
I'm trying to conduct an objective discussion. Why would you think you are the subject? Personally, I don't care in the least what you are. That's your business and none of mine.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Fantasea said:
I'm trying to conduct an objective discussion. Why would you think you are the subject? Personally, I don't care in the least what you are. That's your business and none of mine.
Alright. I think that they believe that in a sense they are a religion of non-believers in the loosest definition but in the same sense rebel against religion. I think that they are kinda self-hating, but sometimes don't realize it.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ShamMol said:
Alright. I think that they believe that in a sense they are a religion of non-believers in the loosest definition but in the same sense rebel against religion. I think that they are kinda self-hating, but sometimes don't realize it.
Self-hating?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ShamMol said:
In a sense, that is what I think and is open to interpretation.
So buddhists are self-hating since they are atheists? C'mon.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
shuamort said:
So buddhists are self-hating since they are atheists? C'mon.
No, I mean the actual religion of atheism. Not other religions that claim that as one of the beliefs.
 
Top Bottom