Separation of church and state

[davidtaylorjr]

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.

It's not crazy to enforce the idea our country should not ruled by ridiculous concepts as found in the Bible.

That's actually NOT what the document says as the OP points out.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

It doesn't matter. It's how we do things now.

And how about dealing with the rest of what I said? Tells us of this "Christian" nation of yours?

So in other words if you don't like the Constitution just don't follow it? Yeah, that's a good idea. If the Supreme court suddently legislated from the bench instead of properly interpreting, and made huge legislations that are against your ideals I bet you would have a fuss about it.

 

[Ikari]

But we're talking about the Constitution, and it clearly was NOT pro-Christian, nor was it pro any religion or anti religion.

Exactly, it was secular.

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.

It's not crazy to enforce the idea our country should not ruled by ridiculous concepts as found in the Bible.

Yup, some of the Founding Fathers were believers, but the point of government was not to push religious belief. Government could not prevent nor encourage it.

 

[Slyfox696]

That's actually NOT what the document says as the OP points out.

Uh, it's EXACTLY what the document says. The OP was speaking to a different point, also false, which was that since the Constitution doesn't say separation of church and state, the Supreme Court could not. Others in this thread have already explained why that position does not really make sense.

I'm addressing YOUR claim which suggested the Constitution is a Christian document, when it most certainly is not. Whether the government itself was Christian is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the Constitution grants the government the ability to institutionalize religion, and it does not. We see this in the 1st Amendment. Thus it is not at all inappropriate for the Supreme Court to say the 1st Amendment essentially guarantees the separation of government from religion, because any government action in the name of religion, would in effect be a law establishing a religion.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Uh, it's EXACTLY what the document says. The OP was speaking to a different point, also false, which was that since the Constitution doesn't say separation of church and state, the Supreme Court could not. Others in this thread have already explained why that position does not really make sense.

I'm addressing YOUR claim which suggested the Constitution is a Christian document, when it most certainly is not. Whether the government itself was Christian is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the Constitution grants the government the ability to institutionalize religion, and it does not. We see this in the 1st Amendment. Thus it is not at all inappropriate for the Supreme Court to say the 1st Amendment essentially guarantees the separation of government from religion, because any government action in the name of religion, would in effect be a law establishing a religion.

Did not say it was a Christian Document, please show where I said that.

 

[Slyfox696]

Did not say it was a Christian Document, please show where I said that.

You didn't, which is why I said: "I'm addressing YOUR claim which suggested the Constitution is a Christian document"

So how about instead of bogging down in the technicalities and trivialities, let's discuss what's important.

 

[TiredOfLife]

So in other words if you don't like the Constitution just don't follow it? Yeah, that's a good idea. If the Supreme court suddently legislated from the bench instead of properly interpreting, and made huge legislations that are against your ideals I bet you would have a fuss about it.

A fuss is different from saying we should go back, when that's not even possible, so which one of us is being rational and realistic?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

You didn't, which is why I said: "I'm addressing YOUR claim which suggested the Constitution is a Christian document"

So how about instead of bogging down in the technicalities and trivialities, let's discuss what's important.

But that isn't what I suggested at all. That being said, my point is still valid and stands true.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

A fuss is different from saying we should go back, when that's not even possible, so which one of us is being rational and realistic?

We can't go back? False. We HAVE to reign in the government, all three branches.

 

[TiredOfLife]

We can't go back? False. We HAVE to reign in the government, all three branches.

I'll tell you what, let's up the ante. Let's go back to when the Constitution was first ratified. Everything will be just as it was. Are you good with that?

 

[joG]

technically, but when you come down to it, Sup. Ct. justices legislate, as do presidents (executive orders), we just don't call it that ...

I will grant you that point. But there are differences to a ruling, an executive order and a law. The methods and instruments to control their misuse are also different. I am not really totally sure, but I think that we need all three. We just have to keep on our toes, trust nobody and make ruthlessly sure the checks are watching the balances and vice versa.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

How, exactly, can the gov't be pro-Christian and not be establishing a religion?

Can you cite any examples of what was taken away from you by the "crazies"?

 

[TiredOfLife]

How, exactly, can the gov't be pro-Christian and not be establishing a religion?

Can you cite any examples of what was taken away from you by the "crazies"?

School prayer. And this is what really bugs them, they lost the fact that they had more rights than anyone else, as in if you aren't a Christians then we really don't give a damn, just shut up and take it.

 

[Ikari]

We can't go back? False. We HAVE to reign in the government, all three branches.

Indeed, but it must be reigned in by those committed and resolved towards the principles of freedom and liberty. If bigots rewrite the Constitution, there won't be much freedom for anyone.

 

[ttwtt78640]

School prayer. And this is what really bugs them, they lost the fact that they had more rights than anyone else, as in if you aren't a Christians then we really don't give a damn, just shut up and take it.

Was this prayer "right" taken from only Christians and thus limitted your right to silently pray at your leaisure? Perhaps limitting organized prayer time in public schools was not prohibiting the free exercise of religion but simply adding more instruction time to the school day for all. You are still free to pray before, during and after school, just not to take any instructional time away from others in order to do so.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Indeed, but it must be reigned in by those committed and resolved towards the principles of freedom and liberty. If bigots rewrite the Constitution, there won't be much freedom for anyone.

Nobody said re-write the Constitution. What I said was get government back under control that is allowed under the Constitution, not this convoluted idea we subscribe to now with limitless Executive Orders, Judicial Legislation, etc....

 

[Ikari]

Nobody said re-write the Constitution. What I said was get government back under control that is allowed under the Constitution, not this convoluted idea we subscribe to now with limitless Executive Orders, Judicial Legislation, etc....

Well you'd have to add some stuff else you'd just repeat the same line of government expansion. The EO in theory is proper and necessary, but it has become an abusive power of the President to legislate from the Executive branch. Clearly the restrictions on the judicial branch had not been enough to prevent judicial tyranny either. Our system went from a balanced Republic with power focused more into the Legislative branch (the branch composed of the most people) into more a pseudo monarchy with the President wielding dangerous levels of power and the Courts being neigh unrestricted.

So it's a bit more than just a reset button, it will take a bit more to expand out that powers cannot be swapped out between branches, that the courts are not the arbiter of the Constitution but must abide by it, etc. And how you write that out has to be done carefully. Only those who are truly committed towards freedom and liberty should have a chance.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Well you'd have to add some stuff else you'd just repeat the same line of government expansion. The EO in theory is proper and necessary, but it has become an abusive power of the President to legislate from the Executive branch. Clearly the restrictions on the judicial branch had not been enough to prevent judicial tyranny either. Our system went from a balanced Republic with power focused more into the Legislative branch (the branch composed of the most people) into more a pseudo monarchy with the President wielding dangerous levels of power and the Courts being neigh unrestricted.

So it's a bit more than just a reset button, it will take a bit more to expand out that powers cannot be swapped out between branches, that the courts are not the arbiter of the Constitution but must abide by it, etc. And how you write that out has to be done carefully. Only those who are truly committed towards freedom and liberty should have a chance.

I can't argue with you there. :agree:

Wait, did we just agree on something???? Is the world ending?

 

[shagg]

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?

Definitions again. One has to properly define "Establishment of a Religion". SCotUS seems to have defined this as to mean that any action of the government which shows favor to one specific religion equates to establishing a government religion, thus requiring a separation of church and state to uphold what is written in the constitution. No law was made, and no legislation from the bench took place. A phrase was created to make the concept easier to understand and refer to. The original language in the constitution is adequate to keep religion out of the government.

Some take it too far. I don't feel that "Under god" needs to be taken from the pledge, or that "In god we trust" should be taken off our currency. honestly, those details mean little to me, and "god" can mean many things in many different religions.

 

[windowdressing]

I will grant you that point. But there are differences to a ruling, an executive order and a law. The methods and instruments to control their misuse are also different. I am not really totally sure, but I think that we need all three. We just have to keep on our toes, trust nobody and make ruthlessly sure the checks are watching the balances and vice versa.

there are differences to be sure ... but as long as we have one political party, the Corporate Party, with its two wings, you'll need to do more than just be on your toes ...

 

[joG]

there are differences to be sure ... but as long as we have one political party, the Corporate Party, with its two wings, you'll need to do more than just be on your toes ...

I continuously follow politics in a number of European countries and the States. Often I check out data in the US and Germany, when I distrust comparisons being made. So, it is not my job. I am not a professional, but policy is closely related to what I studied and do for a living. My impression is, that there is much more variety in US politics than in German and much wider and deeper discussion.

 

[Knowledge=power]

So in other words if you don't like the Constitution just don't follow it? Yeah, that's a good idea. If the Supreme court suddently legislated from the bench instead of properly interpreting, and made huge legislations that are against your ideals I bet you would have a fuss about it.

If you could have the country ( the world, for that matter ) exactly the way you wanted it, how would you have it?

I am curious because of your position on many topics being staunchly religious. This is not a personal attack, I just want to understand how you think things should be and why.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

If you could have the country ( the world, for that matter ) exactly the way you wanted it, how would you have it?

I am curious because of your position on many topics being staunchly religious. This is not a personal attack, I just want to understand how you think things should be and why.

PM me about this. And let's go for specific questions rather than a broad question. I'll be more than happy to have a discussion.

 

[Knowledge=power]

PM me about this. And let's go for specific questions rather than a broad question. I'll be more than happy to have a discussion.

Ok, thanks.

 

[windowdressing]

I continuously follow politics in a number of European countries and the States. Often I check out data in the US and Germany, when I distrust comparisons being made. So, it is not my job. I am not a professional, but policy is closely related to what I studied and do for a living. My impression is, that there is much more variety in US politics than in German and much wider and deeper discussion.

if you're right, that's really depressing ...