- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The phrase "separation of church and state" has been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court.
The phrase itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For the first 200 years of our country's existence, the Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states.
In fact, before 1947, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; and in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to add the language "separation of church and state." It failed legislatively. It had to be accomplished via judicial decision, where in unprecedented fashion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
So the question is.... do you think it is fair that the Supreme Court essentially gets to make up laws that they would like to be in the constitution, but which are actually not?
Yet, specifically, the Constitution does not exclude religion from the public square as we have seemed to have accomplished through persistent assaults made upon it. We have a general concept of that religion, having many denominations, that has been, proudly, a part of our heritage and should not have to been hidden away, put in the closet so to speak. That is not my religion but I understand it as part of our history, our common overwhelming predominant belief in the existence of a higher guiding power, and we should not be forced to ignore that... that would infringe upon the free exercise thereof.Petey, if the US government decided to start enacting shariah law, you would be the first one crying about how wrong it is and how THAT religion shouldn't be involved in government. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I don't think you'd like the can of worms that would be opened by marrying religion and government.
The first amendment is pretty clear. You don't get to force your religion on others.
Yet, specifically, the Constitution does not exclude religion from the public square as we have seemed to have accomplished through persistent assaults made upon it. We have a general concept of that religion, having many denominations, that has been, proudly, a part of our heritage and should not have to been hidden away, put in the closet so to speak. That is not my religion but I understand it as part of our history, our common overwhelming predominant belief in the existence of a higher guiding power, and we should not be forced to ignore that... that would infringe upon the free exercise thereof.
And that is whether we like it or not, or think it would open up a can of worms or not... if one wants to change that, Amend the Constitution.
Is the Supreme Court only permitted to say things made up of phrases taken directly from the Constitution?The phrase "separation of church and state" has been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court.
The phrase itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
I gathered that the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution in the context of modern law. The Constitution itself isn't legislation, it's a set of quite general principals to be applied to legislation. Given that general nature, the passage or time and some archaic language, the Constitution is open to significant interpretation when considering specific issues. The Supreme Court is there to have the final word on that interpretation.So the question is.... do you think it is fair that the Supreme Court essentially gets to make up laws that they would like to be in the constitution, but which are actually not?
Who says if the majority of taxpayers wants precisely that, locally, and it is to be their taxes being used, that they cannot do just that? That is not establishing a religion and cannot be logically argued that it is. You may not want that, but it certainly is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. You may not like it, again, but that is not my concern. This is a majority rules nation. It would be, and was in the past, Constitutional.Exercising your own religion does not include using tax payer funding to erect christian monuments on public property. You can not use taxpayer funding to glorify your own private god.
Would you be singing the same tune if they were erecting muslim monuments with your tax dollars?
If you want to do something like that, do it on your property with your own money. Problem solved.
Who says if the majority of taxpayers wants precisely that, locally, and it is to be their taxes being used, that they cannot do just that? That is not establishing a religion and cannot be logically argued that it is. You may not want that, but it certainly is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. You may not like it, again, but that is not my concern. This is a majority rules nation. It would be, and was in the past, Constitutional.
If I lived in an area and that is what the majority of the taxpayers wanted to use some of their tax dollars for, why should I, the minority, deny them? That would be a little discriminatory, would it not? A tyranny of the minority. Now, I would have my minority rights, freedom of speech, freedom of my own religion, freedom of the press and petition to achieve, or at least attempt, a majority in an effort to preclude this, if I so chose.
Yes, and thanks but no thanks...and that is your opinion, but does not coincide with the language in the Constitution. Sorry. Problem solved better, much earlier in our history .
Yet, specifically, the Constitution does not exclude religion from the public square as we have seemed to have accomplished through persistent assaults made upon it. We have a general concept of that religion, having many denominations, that has been, proudly, a part of our heritage and should not have to been hidden away, put in the closet so to speak. That is not my religion but I understand it as part of our history, our common overwhelming predominant belief in the existence of a higher guiding power, and we should not be forced to ignore that... that would infringe upon the free exercise thereof.
And that is whether we like it or not, or think it would open up a can of worms or not... if one wants to change that, Amend the Constitution.
The phrase "separation of church and state" has been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court.
The phrase itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For the first 200 years of our country's existence, the Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states.
In fact, before 1947, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; and in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to add the language "separation of church and state." It failed legislatively. It had to be accomplished via judicial decision, where in unprecedented fashion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
So the question is.... do you think it is fair that the Supreme Court essentially gets to make up laws that they would like to be in the constitution, but which are actually not?
The phrase "separation of church and state" has been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court.
The phrase itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For the first 200 years of our country's existence, the Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states.
In fact, before 1947, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; and in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to add the language "separation of church and state." It failed legislatively. It had to be accomplished via judicial decision, where in unprecedented fashion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
So the question is.... do you think it is fair that the Supreme Court essentially gets to make up laws that they would like to be in the constitution, but which are actually not?
Who says if the majority of taxpayers wants precisely that, locally, and it is to be their taxes being used, that they cannot do just that? That is not establishing a religion and cannot be logically argued that it is. You may not want that, but it certainly is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. You may not like it, again, but that is not my concern. This is a majority rules nation. It would be, and was in the past, Constitutional.
If I lived in an area and that is what the majority of the taxpayers wanted to use some of their tax dollars for, why should I, the minority, deny them? That would be a little discriminatory, would it not? A tyranny of the minority. Now, I would have my minority rights, freedom of speech, freedom of my own religion, freedom of the press and petition to achieve, or at least attempt, a majority in an effort to preclude this, if I so chose.
Yes, and thanks but no thanks...and that is your opinion, but does not coincide with the language in the Constitution. Sorry. Problem solved better, much earlier in our history .
I don't know. When you break it down, it doesn't seem all that difficult. The phrase "Congress shall make no law..." ought to be pretty clear - congress isn't allowed to make a law. "...respecting an establishment of religion..." "Respecting" - pertaining to. "An establishment of religion" - i.e. creating a religion, or establishing if you will a State religion. In other words, the Constitution does not allow congress to enact a law that establishes a religion. It prohibits the establishment of say, the Church of America (cf. the Church of England).The phrase "separation of church and state" has been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court.
The phrase itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For the first 200 years of our country's existence, the Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states.
In fact, before 1947, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; and in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to add the language "separation of church and state." It failed legislatively. It had to be accomplished via judicial decision, where in unprecedented fashion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
So the question is.... do you think it is fair that the Supreme Court essentially gets to make up laws that they would like to be in the constitution, but which are actually not?
The phrase "separation of church and state" has been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court.
The phrase itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For the first 200 years of our country's existence, the Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states.
In fact, before 1947, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; and in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to add the language "separation of church and state." It failed legislatively. It had to be accomplished via judicial decision, where in unprecedented fashion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
So the question is.... do you think it is fair that the Supreme Court essentially gets to make up laws that they would like to be in the constitution, but which are actually not?
The phrase "separation of church and state" has been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court.
The phrase itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For the first 200 years of our country's existence, the Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states.
In fact, before 1947, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; and in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to add the language "separation of church and state." It failed legislatively. It had to be accomplished via judicial decision, where in unprecedented fashion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
So the question is.... do you think it is fair that the Supreme Court essentially gets to make up laws that they would like to be in the constitution, but which are actually not?
Should we let the past define the future? They didn't.No it is not fair, nor Constitutional. The government was clearly pro-Christian for over a century until the athiest and liberal crazies got involved.
It is not really my impression that the Supreme Court is making laws in this case. It is interpreting the constitution, which seems quite clear to me in this point.
Should we let the past define the future? They didn't.
It is their role now and it's worked out pretty well. What kind of Christian Nation would you like? Using the Bible as a textbook again? Teacher-led Prayer in Public Schools? You guys can't get along with each other anyway. Do you know why the Catholics have their own schools? It's because you guys were pushing your version of Jesus down the throats of their kids. Yeah, let's go back to that.Doesn't change the fact that they overstepped and read into the Constitution and changed the meaning. That is not their role or right.
So the question is.... do you think it is fair that the Supreme Court essentially gets to make up laws that they would like to be in the constitution, but which are actually not?
They've been doing it for quite some time, are you surprised? As for this topic, our government certainly is a secular one. A theocracy would be bad, theocracies are always bad.
It is their role now and it's worked out pretty well. What kind of Christian Nation would you like? Using the Bible as a textbook again? Teacher-led Prayer in Public Schools? You guys can't get along with each other anyway. Do you know why the Catholics have their own schools? It's because you guys were pushing your version of Jesus down the throats of their kids. Yeah, let's go back to that.
But we're talking about the Constitution, and it clearly was NOT pro-Christian, nor was it pro any religion or anti religion. The people in the government may have been Christian. There may have been laws created under Christian ethics. But the Constitution itself is not a Christian document, it is a framework which expressly says Congress should have no hand in anything religious, neither the promotion of nor the prohibition against.No it is not fair, nor Constitutional. The government was clearly pro-Christian for over a century until the athiest and liberal crazies got involved.
It doesn't matter. It's how we do things now.It is NOT their role, they have been living outside of their role.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?