Separation of church and state: The Concept

[SheWolf]

You have got to be kidding.

Please don't play stupid. Make your point or move on.

No, I am not kidding.. I would like to know the prayer, or what kind of prayer it is. I have no point to make.

 

[RightinNYC]

The problem isn't whether or not we agree with the concept of separation, it's with defining what that means. Which of the following violate "separation of church and state"?

1) Letting the Amish opt-out of Social Security
2) Placing a mural of historical legal figures including Moses in a courthouse
3) Offering school holidays for Jewish, Christian, or Muslim religious holidays
4) Letting religious school students use public school sports fields
5) Giving parents school vouchers that they can use at religious schools
6) Letting a public school student sing God Bless America before a football game
7) Placing a christmas tree/menorah in a public place
8) Public-funded busing of children to private schools
9) Saying the pledge of allegiance each morning
10) Public funds being used to pay for chaplains for Congress/the military

 

[Black Dog]

No, I am not kidding.. I would like to know the prayer, or what kind of prayer it is. I have no point to make.

I don't think there is a spacific prayer but it is lead by...

The House chaplain earns $139,000 per year, and the Senate chaplain's salary is $122,400...

Senate chaplains have represented eight Denominations: Episcopalian (19), Methodist (17), Presbyterian (14), Baptist (6), Unitarian (2), Congregationalist (1), Lutheran (1), and Roman Catholic (1).

There have been critics over the years who have charged the practice of official chaplains violates the concept of separation of church and state. In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld the practice of having an official chaplain as deeply ingrained in the history and tradition of this country.

They stated the ultimate authority for the position lies in the Constitution which states that the House and Senate may each choose their officers, with no restrictions on what kind of officers may be chosen. Using that authority, both chambers have chosen to continue to elect an officer to act as Chaplain.

 

[RosieS]

Actually, freedom FROM religion means no menorahs carved in stone over the courthouse, no Ten Commandments, no matter who pays for it, on the Tax Collector's lawn, no Christmas creche on the Town Hall lawn.

It means freedom from religion in the public square. Your definition, Blackdog, needs to be a tad bit more involved.

Regards from Rosie

 

[RightinNYC]

Actually, freedom FROM religion means no menorahs carved in stone over the courthouse, no Ten Commandments, no matter who pays for it, on the Tax Collector's lawn, no Christmas creche on the Town Hall lawn.

It means freedom from religion in the public square. Your definition, Blackdog, needs to be a tad bit more involved.

Regards from Rosie

Well, that's certainly one interpretation, but I very much doubt it's the one shared by most Americans or by the people who actually drafted the first amendment.

 

[Barbbtx]

Uh, that's what compel means...to force the issue. Compulsory means being forced to do it. Prayer can't be required. It can be voluntary and private, like in a small huddle before and after a football game for some people, but no one can be compelled to pray at any public function. You can't make the whole team pray, no matter how bad their win-loss record.

Regards from Rosie

If there was freedom FROM religion couldn't it be argued that no one on the team would be allowed to pray?

 

[Black Dog]

Actually, freedom FROM religion means no menorahs carved in stone over the courthouse, no Ten Commandments, no matter who pays for it, on the Tax Collector's lawn, no Christmas creche on the Town Hall lawn.

It means freedom from religion in the public square. Your definition, Blackdog, needs to be a tad bit more involved.

Regards from Rosie

Not really, you are completly and utterly wrong.

On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature.

So religious objects as part of a "secular display" much like a Christmas tree are perfectly legal.

Again freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Sort of puts a hole in your theory huh? :lol:

 

[The Baron]

The First Amendment
“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.”

Regardless of what lawyers may tell you, you don’t have to be a Constitutional Scholar to understand what the Constitution says.

It plainly limits what the state may do with respect to religion. It does not limit how religion may influence the state.

Anyone who claims differently (including the Supreme Court) is simply incapable of comprehending a simple sentence.

 

[Technocratic]

The concept of freedom of religion requires at measure of freedom from religion, or else you have no freedom of religion itself. For example, as jefferson noted, it would be a violation of your freedom of conscience to have to pay for the glorification and promotion of another faith to which you are not a member.

Consequently, I must have freedom from the religion of others as manifested by legislation and taxation. You cannot tax me to fund religious programmes, you cannot make me pay for government religious materials or decorations.

By taxing me to pay indirectly for faith based programmes or beautification through religious iconography, you violate my lack of faith.

 

[RightinNYC]

Consequently, I must have freedom from the religion of others as manifested by legislation and taxation. You cannot tax me to fund religious programmes, you cannot make me pay for government religious materials or decorations.

By taxing me to pay indirectly for faith based programmes or beautification through religious iconography, you violate my lack of faith.

It's more complex than that. The court has repeatedly upheld programs that relate to religion where the purpose was not to promote religion.

 

[hallam]

The concept of freedom of religion requires at measure of freedom from religion, or else you have no freedom of religion itself. For example, as jefferson noted, it would be a violation of your freedom of conscience to have to pay for the glorification and promotion of another faith to which you are not a member.

Consequently, I must have freedom from the religion of others as manifested by legislation and taxation. You cannot tax me to fund religious programmes, you cannot make me pay for government religious materials or decorations.

By taxing me to pay indirectly for faith based programmes or beautification through religious iconography, you violate my lack of faith.

You do have a certain amount of freedom from religion but it doesn't cover this. Public money can go to beautification directly. There are preserved churches in the Great Smokey Mountains. Technically, your money goes to preserving them year after year. Your lack of faith here wont matter.

Compulsion is the word here. The religious can't force you to practice. However, if your day to day life interacts with religious practice, your lack of faith is moot. The religious can stand on a street corner and evangalize all they want and your freedom from religion can't prevent this. It is best to set a limit on what you think freedom from relgiion means because it is actually a very limited freedom in the US.

 

[Technocratic]

I understand spending for historical purposes, but not for the promotion of a faith, yes. I would consider the former a legitimate social interest in preservation. I would not, however, support building a monument to the Tenets of Scientology in centre square ;D

I don't care about people preaching on the street, but I don't want to pay to have them preach. My biggest concern is having to pay to promote someone elses' religion.

I agree with the principle of secondary effect, too, as the courts do. I don't care if the primary purpose is secular. That's all good.

 

[RosieS]

Not really, you are completly and utterly wrong.

On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature.

So religious objects as part of a "secular display" much like a Christmas tree are perfectly legal.

Again freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Sort of puts a hole in your theory huh? :lol:

No, it does not. When the Supreme Court rules it so, then get back to me. Until that time it is not settled case law. It only applies to the Sixth Circuit - land of red necks and Pabst Blue Ribbon. Nice try, but that dog don't hunt. LOLOL

Regards from Rosie

 

[Black Dog]

No, it does not. When the Supreme Court rules it so, then get back to me. Until that time it is not settled case law. It only applies to the Sixth Circuit - land of red necks and Pabst Blue Ribbon. Nice try, but that dog don't hunt. LOLOL

Regards from Rosie

Well you can yell "I am not listening to logic, la, la, la" with your fingers in your ears all you like. All it does is make you look ignorant.

You have allot of nerve calling into question anyones location/life style considering your statements. I will also add you come off as a childish bigot.

PS The SCOTUS does not have to rule for anything to be law. :2wave:

 

[Ikari]

Actually, freedom FROM religion means no menorahs carved in stone over the courthouse, no Ten Commandments, no matter who pays for it, on the Tax Collector's lawn, no Christmas creche on the Town Hall lawn.

It means freedom from religion in the public square. Your definition, Blackdog, needs to be a tad bit more involved.

Regards from Rosie

We don't have freedom from religion, but rather freedom of religion. We are free to practice and express our religion as we see fit so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process. And merely seeing religious symbols does not count as a rights violation. I have no problem with things such as the 10 Commandments or whatever other religious displays may be outside a courtroom. Up to the community. As long as the court rules by the laws of man and not the laws of gods; it's fine.

 

[Josie]

Y'all know that the people who wrote and signed the Constitution had church services in the Capitol building for several years, right?

 

[Deuce]

Y'all know that the people who wrote and signed the Constitution had church services in the Capitol building for several years, right?

That doesn't make me want creationism taught to my children in a science class.

 

[Josie]

That doesn't make me want creationism taught to my children in a science class.

Well, it's not about what you want. Obviously the original intent wasn't to completely eliminate anything to do with religion from government buildings.

 

[digsbe]

I think separation of church and state was to prevent a theocracy or tyranny against religion. Back in Europe nations had national churches and oppressed Christians of other denominations. Many of the migrants to America were fleeing from religious persecution in Europe at the hands of the state church. I think separation of church and state was set in place to protect the religious freedom of all people and to prevent the government from taking upon itself a state religion. It doesn't mean a silencing of all things spiritual/religious in government like many want it to mean. We can glean from history and the authors' intent that it was set in place to ensure religious freedom of all citizens and prevent a tyrannical state religion from trampling on those rights.

 

[Technocratic]

Well, it's not about what you want. Obviously the original intent wasn't to completely eliminate anything to do with religion from government buildings.

The fact that many of the Founding Fathers were hypocrites who simply ignored the implications of their own work doesn't prove what the Founding Fathers did was correct. Just means they broke the law.

Politicians at the time did many things that were technically illegal. The fact that they did them doesn't make them legal any more than the ownership of slaves is congruent with American ideology as expressed in the DoI.

 

[getagrip]

The Constitution is a Federal Document, therefore the Bill of Rights can be viewed as the 10 Commandments that the Federal Government MUST obey ... Thou shalt not, Thou shalt not, etc

Article I, Section I: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The 1947 Everson vs. Board of Education deliberately took out of context what Jefferson had written to the Danbury Baptists in using only the commonly known 7 words; "... wall of separation between Church and State ..." In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court was in violation of it's sacred trust to the Constitution not once, but twice. First, in legislating a "separation clause" into the 1st Amendment where only Congress was granted any legislative authority, and 2nd, the First Amendment itself ... MAKE NO LAW! But the whole issue behind the scenes was to introduce evolution into the classrooms where the opinions of parents could be permanently ceased. See Trial and Error: the American Controversy over Creation and Evolution

Here is the actual letter content written by Jefferson on January 1, 1802:

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. . . . 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.

Jefferson's reference to "natural rights" was an important legal phrase meaning that religious liberties were actually inalienable rights. While the phrase "natural rights" was well understood back then, it means very little to most people today.

As the tentacles of the Federal Government continue to grow and operate well outside it's authority, we've see lawsuits galore over someone simply praying before a high-school football game or even where a call for a moment of silence has been offered. How pathetic have we become? Public Schools are not listed as an enumerated power under Article I, Section VIII. Legally, the Feds can't interfere without violating their sworn oath of office.

It's like this, we all remember growing up and living under the roof of our parents. And how many times did you try to argue with them, claiming for instance, "well Billy's parents are letting him see the movie ..." Of course in my house, father sternly stated: "I don't care what Billy's parents let him do. You live in my house and you will abide by my rules! Period!"

Whenever we allow ourselves to become under the giant umbrella of big government, such as this totally unConstitutional HealthCare Bill, we are simply moving back under our parents roof. We are stripping away at our own liberties and becoming slaves to the whims of federal tyranny. And history is very clear where that eventually leads.

 

[Technocratic]

Obviously, Getagrip would have no problem with beng taxed to build a monument to the Fundamental Pillars of Islam on all of our court buildings

Next, we can place giant copies of Dianetics on public hospitals. Gotta respect faith. Right?

LoL.

 

[RosieS]

I don't have a problem with socially enforced 'patriotism' being the de facto religion of the land. Stand up, hand over heart, hats off, wear a flag pin, genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.

But the US government cannot assist in promoting any religion. The governmental areas are to be free of religious iconography. If anyone thinks Halloween skeletons or Christmas trees are religious, well...they're kinda really very Pagan.

Freedom FROM Religion does mean that, for now, Creationism doesn't get any place in public schools. Creationism was ruled to be fraudulent in Delaware by a Federal Judge. Religious fanatics made it up from whole cloth.

And no. Blackdog, this is not settled law until SCOTUS rules on it. Settled as I wrote the first time.

Getting personal for no good reason seems petty, surly and childish.

So I won't go there as you did, BD.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Ikari]

I don't have a problem with socially enforced 'patriotism' being the de facto religion of the land. Stand up, hand over heart, hats off, wear a flag pin, genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.

But the US government cannot assist in promoting any religion. The governmental areas are to be free of religious iconography. If anyone thinks Halloween skeletons or Christmas trees are religious, well...they're kinda really very Pagan.

Freedom FROM Religion does mean that, for now, Creationism doesn't get any place in public schools. Creationism was ruled to be fraudulent in Delaware by a Federal Judge. Religious fanatics made it up from whole cloth.

And no. Blackdog, this is not settled law until SCOTUS rules on it. Settled as I wrote the first time.

Getting personal for no good reason seems petty, surly and childish.

So I won't go there as you did, BD.

Regards from Rosie

But there is no freedom from religion. In fact, it's impossible; you're going to hear people preaching and you're going to see religious symbols. It's just the way it is. Government is forbidden from making any laws pertaining to religious expression and practice. That's the actual, factual restriction. That doesn't mean you can't have a display of the 10 Commandments outside a courthouse. Of course you can, it in no way shape or form violates separation of church and state unless the court itself is ruling by the laws of gods and not the laws of man.

And creationism could very easily have a proper place in public education. If we had theism courses, it could legitimately be discussed there. It just doesn't belong in a science class since it is a theory from theology not science. But there's nothing wrong with the study of theology either and it has legitimate academic pursuits. I think that because some people have gone overboard in their irrational reactions, we don't discuss reasonable solutions or actions. There is no doubt the effect religion has had on the course of human history and because of its historical and present day effects; it is legitimate academic study and we shouldn't shy away from it just because it's religion. It's pretty stupid to claim we have freedom from religion when no such thing exists. We have freedom of religion. And it is in that light that we should act; always looking to proliferate and protect the free exercise of our rights. Not go on some intellectually devistating tangent of hearsay and propaganda.

 

[RosieS]

There are plenty of organizations fighting to maintain the Separation of Church and State and they are not about to roll over and play dead because some people think it's ok get on the slippery slope of moving away from freedom FROM religion.

The recent ruling that a National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it endorses prayer is a win that proves that imposing any religion on the state won't fly.


The organizations working in this area are too many to list. It ain't just the ACLU, folks.

Regards from Rosie