Separation of church and state: The Concept

[Ikari]

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

There never was freedom from religion in this country. That's a mantra stupid people repeat because they don't know any better. Maybe I'm one of the few atheists secure in his own disbelief to not feel threatened by other people expressing and practicing their rights. There must be an amount of reasonableness left on both sides so that we can work something out.

In the end people like you are why we can't have anything nice in this country. For whatever subject matter there is, there has to be some crazy people bitching and moaning about this or that and ruining everything for the rest of us. Oh noes! Look over there, there's a manger scene on a courthouse! Oh, it's the worst travesty since the holocaust! This can't persist. blah blah blah. You know, a manger scene has never once turned me into a Christian. Nor has any display of religious items; even if it's on government property. I've never been forced to go to church (well, by the government. I went to Catholic school though). At no point has any of my rights been imposed upon. And until that point is reached; people are free to do as they like.

This is just a consequence of freedom. Learn to accept it or get out of the way. Preaching against the rights and liberties of the individual is not a good thing, nor will it ever be considered good. At some point people are going to have to realize there are repercussions and consequences of freedom; including that people will do stuff you may not personally like. But unless they are infringing upon the rights of others, there is nothing legitimately that you can do. Of course, you can turn to treason and tyranny but that should rightfully get one shot.

 

[getagrip]

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.

Did this Federal Judge have some kind of Scientific degree? From what sources did he use to declare that Creationism was "fraudulent?"

Do you believe in alien life forms from other planets? Stephen Hawking says he does, and since 1984, SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and the NASA Ames Reseach Center has yet to discover a single bit of evidence of possible life beyond our own. The reason I mention alien life forms in comparison with evolution, they both feed off of each other. The famous British astronomer, astrophysicist and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle, when faced with the possibility of life evolving, summed it up this way:

The chance that the higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials within.

Did this Federal Judge have credentials that could scientifically challenge Sir Fred Hoyle? The fact is, evolution does not even address origins. Evolution is simply a religion that states that life begets life, in whatever imaginary design some "scientist" might declare, but not where life began. They're clueless. If life has been on this earth for hundreds of millions of years, why has there not been found a single fossile illustrating a possible intermediate stage of the evolutionary process? If the earth is actually 4.5 billion years old, a modern compass would not even function given the rate of decay in the iron ore saturated poles that create the magnetic field. Since 1975, scientists have discovered that the Sun is actually shrinking. Again, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old, just a few million years ago, life could not have existed using the reverse calculations of sun deterioration and the surface temperatures that would have been on earth.

In the Ben Stein documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, he interviews Richard Dawkins, the prolific atheist activist and biology professor at Oxford University. When asked where does life begin? After fumbling for words, and backed into the corner by Ben, Dawkins could only resort to the "magic genie" of aliens from outer space. BTW, Richard Dawkins is famous for declaring: "Evolution is the intellectual platform of atheism."

But if you choose to believe that the moose, the blue whale and the meadowlark are all blood related, be my guest.

While I don't endorse this video on it's Biblical doctrines, I do find the scientific aspects of intelligent design outstanding:

 

[Ikari]

Did this Federal Judge have credentials that could scientifically challenge Sir Fred Hoyle? The fact is, evolution does not even address origins. Evolution is simply a religion that states that life begets life, in whatever imaginary design some "scientist" might declare, but not where life began. They're clueless. If life has been on this earth for hundreds of millions of years, why has there not been found a single fossile illustrating a possible intermediate stage of the evolutionary process? If the earth is actually 4.5 billion years old, a modern compass would not even function given the rate of decay in the iron ore saturated poles that create the magnetic field. Since 1975, scientists have discovered that the Sun is actually shrinking. Again, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old, just a few million years ago, life could not have existed using the reverse calculations of sun deterioration and the surface temperatures that would have been on earth.

Well there's actual measurement for evolution found in the fossile record, along with dating proceedures which can roughly date the earth. To deny these things is stupid. To try to claim that humanity knows everything at this point is equally stupid.

Oh, and are you claiming that our magnetic field is caised by "iron ore saturated poles"? You do realize that's not how the Earth's magnetic field is created right?

 

[samsmart]

There never was freedom from religion in this country. That's a mantra stupid people repeat because they don't know any better. Maybe I'm one of the few atheists secure in his own disbelief to not feel threatened by other people expressing and practicing their rights. There must be an amount of reasonableness left on both sides so that we can work something out.

In the end people like you are why we can't have anything nice in this country. For whatever subject matter there is, there has to be some crazy people bitching and moaning about this or that and ruining everything for the rest of us. Oh noes! Look over there, there's a manger scene on a courthouse! Oh, it's the worst travesty since the holocaust! This can't persist. blah blah blah. You know, a manger scene has never once turned me into a Christian. Nor has any display of religious items; even if it's on government property. I've never been forced to go to church (well, by the government. I went to Catholic school though). At no point has any of my rights been imposed upon. And until that point is reached; people are free to do as they like.

This is just a consequence of freedom. Learn to accept it or get out of the way. Preaching against the rights and liberties of the individual is not a good thing, nor will it ever be considered good. At some point people are going to have to realize there are repercussions and consequences of freedom; including that people will do stuff you may not personally like. But unless they are infringing upon the rights of others, there is nothing legitimately that you can do. Of course, you can turn to treason and tyranny but that should rightfully get one shot.

I think you are taking the term "freedom from religion" a bit too literally.

I, for one, believe in freedom from religion, but let me explain what that phrase means to me.

To me, I think that we as a people have the freedom to make decisions for ourselves regardless what the religious beliefs, doctrines, and dogmas of others are.

To further clarify that, I believe that when it comes to political debates, religious reasons for instituting policies shouldn't be considered.

As an example, while I believe that prostitution should be legal, I don't think a good argument against should be, "Well, my religious text says it's wrong, and my religious text is the only one that's right, so it's the only way we can live, and so we have to force people to live that way since it's the only right way, and that's all there is to that." That's not a good reason at all to institute any kind of policy.

If, on the other hand, someone who wanted to keep prostitution illegal talked to me about the exploitation of women, the possibility of government corruption in regulation of prostitution, or the health dangers of sexually transmitted diseases that could be caused by prostitution I could at least respect those position because they are reasonable positions.

So even though I may personally beleive that prostitution be legal, I would at least respect a law passed for the latter reasons while I would absolutely disregard a law passed for the former reasons.

I don't know if I put that the right way, but I hope I did.

 

[getagrip]

Well there's actual measurement for evolution found in the fossile record, along with dating proceedures which can roughly date the earth. To deny these things is stupid. To try to claim that humanity knows everything at this point is equally stupid.

Oh, and are you claiming that our magnetic field is caised by "iron ore saturated poles"? You do realize that's not how the Earth's magnetic field is created right?

How was the fossile record created?
What are the methods for "dating procedures?"

Dr. Henry Morris is a famed scientist who was part in a 1950's radiometric dating of the rocks in the Hawaiian Islands. Their numerous measurements ranged from 0 million years to 3 million years. The science team simply viewed the fossile record (which has simply been made up) and deduced that the Hawaiian Islands were 250 million years old, and that's what you'll find in most of the text books passed out in public schools, unless they've changed it again. Is that what's passed for Science? At least that's what Dr. Morris witnessed.

Dr. Morris soon after threw away his evolutionist hat and founded the Institute for Creation Research.

Let's just be honest with ourselves. You happen to believe in a different religion than I do.

 

[Ikari]

I think you are taking the term "freedom from religion" a bit too literally.

I, for one, believe in freedom from religion, but let me explain what that phrase means to me.

To me, I think that we as a people have the freedom to make decisions for ourselves regardless what the religious beliefs, doctrines, and dogmas of others are.

To further clarify that, I believe that when it comes to political debates, religious reasons for instituting policies shouldn't be considered.

As an example, while I believe that prostitution should be legal, I don't think a good argument against should be, "Well, my religious text says it's wrong, and my religious text is the only one that's right, so it's the only way we can live, and so we have to force people to live that way since it's the only right way, and that's all there is to that." That's not a good reason at all to institute any kind of policy.

If, on the other hand, someone who wanted to keep prostitution illegal talked to me about the exploitation of women, the possibility of government corruption in regulation of prostitution, or the health dangers of sexually transmitted diseases that could be caused by prostitution I could at least respect those position because they are reasonable positions.

So even though I may personally beleive that prostitution be legal, I would at least respect a law passed for the latter reasons while I would absolutely disregard a law passed for the former reasons.

I don't know if I put that the right way, but I hope I did.

And all this deals with secular style government. Our government is secular. Of course, laws are based on the rights and liberties of the individual and not religious doctrine. Nor should purely religious arguments ever constitute enough "evidence" for instituting religious style laws. But I'm still not calling that freedom from religion. As it seemed to be used earlier, that term implied that there was a right to not have to look at religious symbols on public land. But to me, that's a community decision. If they want it there, who am I to say no? I would agree that it is important to keep a secular government. And while religion is a powerful force it has no place in actual law. Our law must be based in the rights and liberties of the individual. I think, however, that in general when some people were using the term freedom from religion they were doing so in well more than some reference to secular government.

But you put it the right way, I can see your definition of freedom from religion. I agree with the practice, but probably would just refer to it as secular government rather than freedom from religion.

 

[Ikari]

How was the fossile record created?
What are the methods for "dating procedures?"

Dr. Henry Morris is a famed scientist who was part in a 1950's radiometric dating of the rocks in the Hawaiian Islands. Their numerous measurements ranged from 0 million years to 3 million years. The science team simply viewed the fossile record (which has simply been made up) and deduced that the Hawaiian Islands were 250 million years old, and that's what you'll find in most of the text books passed out in public schools, unless they've changed it again. Is that what's passed for Science? At least that's what Dr. Morris witnessed.

Dr. Morris soon after threw away his evolutionist hat and founded the Institute for Creation Research.

Let's just be honest with ourselves. You happen to believe in a different religion than I do.

There are various dating techniques. Believe it or not, our technology has improved since the 50's. One nut job doesn't mean that the whole of the scientific community followed. The measurements have been repeated and they all give near the same answer. The earth has to be at least 4.4 billion years old. There's no exact age, we can only establish a lower bound. And several measurement techniques all agree with the lower bound to within ~1%. So who am I supposed to believe? Repeated measurement which is in agreement with each other, or you who apparently doesn't even know how the earth's magnetic field is generated? When dealing with science, who is more trustworthy? The scientists who have invested their lives to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, or you who has an obvious religious agenda you want to push? You want to say I believe in a different religion? Maybe, if that religion is "rational and logical thought".

If you want to discount measurements, then sure; it's up to you. But it's at that point I stop considering your opinion valid. You can wax philosophical all you want, but when there is a measurement involved; that's that. The measurement tells the reality. And the age of the earth has been consistently measured and backed up by even more measurements and all measurements have converged to a common point. The fossile record too, it's there and is a valid measurement demonstrating the change in life on this planet. That, by definition, is evolution as evolution is a process of change. It means that things change with time, and obviously things have changed with time.

 

[getagrip]

There are various dating techniques. Believe it or not, our technology has improved since the 50's. One nut job doesn't mean that the whole of the scientific community followed. The measurements have been repeated and they all give near the same answer. The earth has to be at least 4.4 billion years old. There's no exact age, we can only establish a lower bound. And several measurement techniques all agree with the lower bound to within ~1%. So who am I supposed to believe? Repeated measurement which is in agreement with each other, or you who apparently doesn't even know how the earth's magnetic field is generated? When dealing with science, who is more trustworthy? The scientists who have invested their lives to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, or you who has an obvious religious agenda you want to push? You want to say I believe in a different religion? Maybe, if that religion is "rational and logical thought".

If you want to discount measurements, then sure; it's up to you. But it's at that point I stop considering your opinion valid. You can wax philosophical all you want, but when there is a measurement involved; that's that. The measurement tells the reality. And the age of the earth has been consistently measured and backed up by even more measurements and all measurements have converged to a common point. The fossile record too, it's there and is a valid measurement demonstrating the change in life on this planet. That, by definition, is evolution as evolution is a process of change. It means that things change with time, and obviously things have changed with time.

Nut jub? How can anyone take you seriously if ad hominens are used to denounce credible scientists? Yet you choose to believe the junk-science "teachers" who view the moose, the sperm whale and the meadowlark are are all blood related?

Dr. Morris happens to be the author of more than 60 books, a Hydraulic Engineer. He taught civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and at Southern Illinois University before joining the faculty of Virginia Tech in 1957. He was a respected teacher and department head at Virginia Tech, and his 1963 textbook, "Applied Hydraulics in Engineering," remains a cornerstone of the field.

The problem with your religion is that it constantly changes. An index is created with one dating method then the dating method is proven to be inaccurate so they move to the next dating method which turns out to fail as well and so the entire index of fossils is a maze of patched guesswork, simply so it can fit snugly into the mythical evolutionary time frame. Thus, the religion of evolution. Except, your religion isn't honest as with its adherants as mine is ... they won't tell you when they really screw up bad! Their whole plan is to deceive.

An interesting pattern in evolutionist writings regarding the dating of fossils has been noted. Shortcomings of a dating method in current use are not generally acknowledged by evolutionists. Only when they feel they have devised a better method for a specific time period, do they publicly admit the weaknesses of the method they had been using previously. The result is that the public assumes the dating methods used at any given time are adequate, whereas the dating specialists working with those methods know that this is not necessarily the case.

The admissions now being made about the dating methods that have been previously used by evolutionists to cover this time period are particularly interesting. These admissions have profound implications for human evolution. In the Science article on ostrich-eggshell dating,[3] the authors state that many of the dates assigned to human fossils in this 40,000-to-200,000-years ago period based on the older methods were only "provisional," and that all such dating is "uncertain." These are remarkable admissions. Anyone familiar with the paleoanthropological literature knows that this is not the way most of the dates for fossil discoveries in that time period have been presented. This time period is critical for human evolution, and evolutionists have consistently claimed a degree of certainty in their dating which now appears to be unjustified. The Dating Gap

 

[samsmart]

Nut jub? How can anyone take you seriously if ad hominens are used to denounce credible scientists? Yet you choose to believe the junk-science "teachers" who view the moose, the sperm whale and the meadowlark are are all blood related?

Dr. Morris happens to be the author of more than 60 books, a Hydraulic Engineer. He taught civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and at Southern Illinois University before joining the faculty of Virginia Tech in 1957. He was a respected teacher and department head at Virginia Tech, and his 1963 textbook, "Applied Hydraulics in Engineering," remains a cornerstone of the field.

The problem with your religion is that it constantly changes. An index is created with one dating method then the dating method is proven to be inaccurate so they move to the next dating method which turns out to fail as well and so the entire index of fossils is a maze of patched guesswork, simply so it can fit snugly into the mythical evolutionary time frame. Thus, the religion of evolution. Except, your religion isn't honest as with its adherants as mine is ... they won't tell you when they really screw up bad! Their whole plan is to deceive.

While the fallibility of scientific methods is an issue, the fact that previously accepted scientific methods that may become either outdated or misproven does not neccessarily justify religious doctrines.

 

[getagrip]

While the fallibility of scientific methods is an issue, the fact that previously accepted scientific methods that may become either outdated or misproven does not neccessarily justify religious doctrines.

Don't let me interject my opinions, I'll allow Ronald Story to do it for me:
"Science fiction has become our myth, and science has become our religion. Due mainly to media influences and a hideously complicated world, most people are finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish fantasy from reality."
--Editor: The Mammoth Encylopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters, 2001

 

[samsmart]

Don't let me interject my opinions, I'll allow Ronald Story to do it for me:
"Science fiction has become our myth, and science has become our religion. Due mainly to media influences and a hideously complicated world, most people are finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish fantasy from reality."
--Editor: The Mammoth Encylopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters, 2001

Actually, I think that distinguishing fantasy from reality is just as difficult nowadays as it has always been.

 

[getagrip]

Actually, I think that distinguishing fantasy from reality is just as difficult nowadays as it has always been.

I would disagree. If you ask the guy on the street whether or not the "The Separation of Church and State" clause is found in the Constitution, you'll get nearly an 80% response to the affirmative. 50 years ago, that wouldn't have occured.

 

[samsmart]

I would disagree. If you ask the guy on the street whether or not the "The Separation of Church and State" clause is found in the Constitution, you'll get nearly an 80% response to the affirmative. 50 years ago, that wouldn't have occured.

And yet Pope Alexander III sent a letter to Prester John via his physician Philip on September 27, 1177 despite Prester John, and his mythical kingdom, not existing at all.

 

[Ikari]

Nut jub? How can anyone take you seriously if ad hominens are used to denounce credible scientists? Yet you choose to believe the junk-science "teachers" who view the moose, the sperm whale and the meadowlark are are all blood related?

Dr. Morris happens to be the author of more than 60 books, a Hydraulic Engineer. He taught civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and at Southern Illinois University before joining the faculty of Virginia Tech in 1957. He was a respected teacher and department head at Virginia Tech, and his 1963 textbook, "Applied Hydraulics in Engineering," remains a cornerstone of the field.

The problem with your religion is that it constantly changes. An index is created with one dating method then the dating method is proven to be inaccurate so they move to the next dating method which turns out to fail as well and so the entire index of fossils is a maze of patched guesswork, simply so it can fit snugly into the mythical evolutionary time frame. Thus, the religion of evolution. Except, your religion isn't honest as with its adherants as mine is ... they won't tell you when they really screw up bad! Their whole plan is to deceive.

So you got one guy, huh? How about the tons of theists who understand evolution and dating methods who can incorporate actual measurement into their religious structures? There are lots of them. My PhD adviser was one of them. You have one guy who went off and said "creationism blah" and you're trying to apply some amount of significance to it that doesn't exist. All the data points towards evolution and indicates that the earth is at least 4.4 billion years. You can argue all you want, but in the end measurements take precedent. Any good scientist knows this. YOu just want to try to label this as something so you can engage in some intellectually dishonest propaganda campaign for some odd reason. People's whose faith is so weak that it can be disrupted by a few measurements are pretty pathetic.

Like I said, you can go ahead and ignore all the measurements. But you're opinion then is moot. If you want to deny reality, that's fine. But don't expect to be taken seriously. That's all there is to it. Measurement trumps everything, measurement tells of the actual world and the dynamics of it. And measurement points to evolution, along with the age of the earth.

In this thread I think we've seen examples of the anti-theist and the anti-science camps. These camps are what really makes this a "complicated" matter. Nut jobs the lot.

 

[Ikari]

I would disagree. If you ask the guy on the street whether or not the "The Separation of Church and State" clause is found in the Constitution, you'll get nearly an 80% response to the affirmative. 50 years ago, that wouldn't have occured.

Do you actually have data from 50 years ago, or are you just making a conjecture?

 

[Black Dog]

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.

So as long as it is based on something YOU find acceptable it's OK? :lol:

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.

Christmas trees have ment nothing pagan for almost 1000 years. Sinve the Roman Empire no less.

Freedom FROM Religion does mean that, for now, Creationism doesn't get any place in public schools.

It means nothing at all. The government not endorecing a religion is nor "Freedom from religion."

Creationism was ruled to be fraudulent in Delaware by a Federal Judge. Religious fanatics made it up from whole cloth.

Petty bigotry at best.

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

Please point out the law that says a law is not a law until the SCOTUS says so? I know you can't as it does not exist.

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

Trying to debate aganst the literal "I am not listening la,la,la" is a very good reason.

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

Regards from Rosie

Notice the part in red. Not only did you go there, you just copied what I said. :lol:

 

[getagrip]

Do you actually have data from 50 years ago, or are you just making a conjecture?

Specific data from 50 years ago? ... No. I just happened to be around 50 years ago. School requirements back then for American History consisted of reading our founding documents, learning the era of our Founders, and a memorization of the Bill of Rights. It was simply common knowledge back then. In 2001, a Reader's Digest research article of the world's educational systems ranked America in 21st place. Up until the 1960's, we were ranked #1. There are dozens of well written books relating to "The Dumbing Down of America" if you should care to investigate.

 

[getagrip]

And yet Pope Alexander III sent a letter to Prester John via his physician Philip on September 27, 1177 despite Prester John, and his mythical kingdom, not existing at all.

You've got me on that one ... I'm totally unfamiliar with it. But as the saying goes ... truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

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"?

Let me see here.

Letting the Amish opt-out of Social Security

In my mind that could go either way, most laws should be so that religious organizations aren't specially exempt, but laws also shouldn't interfere unnecessarily with religious practice.

Placing a mural of historical legal figures including Moses in a courthouse

Sounds fine since it isn't promoting religion. If Moses was given most of the mural then one could object.

Offering school holidays for Jewish, Christian, or Muslim religious holidays

As long as they aren't officially religious and overtly religious celebration is left to the people.

Letting religious school students use public school sports fields

I don't see a problem with this, as long as they aren't unfairly favored over secular groups.

Giving parents school vouchers that they can use at religious schools

As long as the requirements that the schools have to meet in order to be approved for vouchers don't involve religion this sounds fine.

Letting a public school student sing God Bless America before a football game

As long as it isn't led by school officials that's fine.

Placing a christmas tree/menorah in a public place

If it is open to appropriate displays of other religions. If the government puts up the displays itself (as opposed to allowing the public to use the land) it can acknowledge religious traditions as long as they don't unfairly favor one religion over others in the community, and and as long as they don't promote religion instead of acknowledge religious tradition.

Public-funded busing of children to private schools

As long as the standards the schools have to meet aren't religious.

Saying the pledge of allegiance each morning

This violates SoC&S because it involves official promotion of religion. Students should be free to add "under God" if they wish.

Public funds being used to pay for chaplains for Congress/the military

Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers In general I agree with this link. Chaplains would still perform religious services.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Dr. Henry Morris is a famed scientist who was part in a 1950's radiometric dating of the rocks in the Hawaiian Islands. Their numerous measurements ranged from 0 million years to 3 million years. The science team simply viewed the fossile record (which has simply been made up) and deduced that the Hawaiian Islands were 250 million years old, and that's what you'll find in most of the text books passed out in public schools, unless they've changed it again. Is that what's passed for Science? At least that's what Dr. Morris witnessed.

What kind of rocks were they dating, what methods were used, and can you give a source? I would think that newly formed rock from lava would be dated young, unless there were unmelted rock fragment within the lava that were older.

What do you mean the fossil record doesn't exist? Do you not believe in fossils?

 

[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.

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

The irony is so thick I could cut it with a spoon.

Take a look at this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

Now take a guess what those things are.


Also, since you're obviously so much smarter than those dumb federal judges, why don't you explain this to me?

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[FluffyNinja]

The Constitution says that our government shall not establish a State Church or establish an official State Religion, and that it shall not prohibit any otherwise lawful religious exercise-- it can not prohibit any religion, or any practice specific to a religion, unless that practice is deemed unlawful irrespective of religion. Thus, the government can not outlaw a religion from sacrificing animals unless it is otherwise unlawful to kill animals, but it can outlaw the method of animal sacrifice if it is deemed a violation of animal cruelty laws. The government can not dictate that a church perform rites or services for any person, nor can it dictate that any person subject themselves to the rites or services of any church.

While I normally agree with the Rat, i must take issue here. the Constitution does not say that "the government" shall not........
rather, it clearly says that CONGRESS shall not.......
Congress encompasses only ONE branch of the FEDERAL government. There are other amendments that deal with reserved powers, and implied powers, like the power to create other Federal Agencies and/or state and local governments. NO WHERE does it restrict ANY of these other governmental elements from being directly involved with religion. I'm not saying that it's good or bad, I'm just pointing out that if we're going to take a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, this MUST be taken into consideration :shrug:

 

[RightinNYC]

While I normally agree with the Rat, i must take issue here. the Constitution does not say that "the government" shall not........
rather, it clearly says that CONGRESS shall not.......
Congress encompasses only ONE branch of the FEDERAL government. There are other amendments that deal with reserved powers, and implied powers, like the power to create other Federal Agencies and/or state and local governments. NO WHERE does it restrict ANY of these other governmental elements from being directly involved with religion. I'm not saying that it's good or bad, I'm just pointing out that if we're going to take a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, this MUST be taken into consideration :shrug:

The First Amendment was incorporated against the states by the 14th.

 

[friday]

We all know the phrase isn't in the constitution, but is the concept?

What does that concept mean to you, and how does the Constitution support your view?



Donnell-Coons debate is being argued in another thread.. and I didn't want to derail it. This thread isn't about politics or that debate.. it's about philosophy.

The other thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ns-separation-church-state-senate-debate.html

Christine O'Donnell is correct that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. However, neither is most of what the government does. That really is why this is such an issue. The Government has inserted itself into every facet of our lives, whether it belongs there or not.

Where separation of church and state comes from is the same man who said that government which governs least governs best. Thomas Jefferson's Baptist minister John Leland was one of the leading proponents for separation of church and state. If you look up some of his quotes, I think you will be impressed no matter what your leanings. But I think where modern culture has failed to understand Church and State comes from our lack of historical context. In America, most of us are Catholics, Reformation Protestants, or Baptists with no historical background of our own denomination. The fact is that more Christians were executed by fellow Christians throughout our history than by any other group. When the reformers got out from under Catholic persecution, the first thing they did was start executing Anabaptists.

In America we wanted something different. We didn't want a government that established agnosticism and persecuted Christianity in the name of separation. We wanted a government that was so small that it would not have the authority to establish churches or persecute Christians or any other faith. That is why it's not Separation written in the Constitution, but instead it is Government shall not establish, nor shall it prohibit. This was a mandate on the Federal government. It had nothing to do with state and local laws (the last state to put this concept in their constitution was MA in 1833, who had a government established church up until then). It has nothing to do with whether a judge decorates his court with the ten commandments, localities put up a nativity, prayers are offered before government meetings, kids mention God in school, or football teams pray before a game. None of those have anything to do with constitutional separation.

What it does have to do with is if courts can redefine the religious institution of marriage, whether schools must establish atheism or agnosticism, whether religious businessmen must serve people or hire people who violate their religious principles, whether the church can be prohibited from speaking out on moral issues in an election year, and so on.

To fully understand separation of church and state, we need to limit the scope of government. Government can't force an employee to provide abortions if the government isn't providing abortions. They can't force religious institutions to hire gays if they are not funding those institutions through so-called "faith based initiatives". Then we need to strike a balance between magisterial forms of Christianity and establishment atheist groups who wish to confine any other religion to the four walls of religious buildings.

To help strike that balance, I recommend studying Leland, Jefferson, and Madison and understanding the original intent of the first amendment.

 

[friday]

While I normally agree with the Rat, i must take issue here. the Constitution does not say that "the government" shall not........
rather, it clearly says that CONGRESS shall not.......
Congress encompasses only ONE branch of the FEDERAL government. There are other amendments that deal with reserved powers, and implied powers, like the power to create other Federal Agencies and/or state and local governments. NO WHERE does it restrict ANY of these other governmental elements from being directly involved with religion. I'm not saying that it's good or bad, I'm just pointing out that if we're going to take a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, this MUST be taken into consideration :shrug:

It might be hard to tell, with all the judicial activism and unconstitutional power grabs by the President, but Congress is actually the only branch of the Federal Government that is allowed to write and pass legislation.