"Separation of Church and State" (1 Viewer)

[joG]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

The People have rights.

Governments created BY THE PEOPLE have specific and enumerated powers.

You make the common error of not distinguishing between the two.

The problem for the baker was that the government assumed powers that traditionally have been considered unconstitutional and forbidden. He relied in rule of law and liberals decided he was wrong to do so.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

The problem for the baker was that the government assumed powers that traditionally have been considered unconstitutional and forbidden. He relied in rule of law and liberals decided he was wrong to do so.

Just semantics, but the traditional term for government "assuming" powers it does not have, is "usurpation" of powers.

 

[joG]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

Just semantics, but the traditional term for government "assuming" powers it does not have, is "usurpation" of powers.

Good Latin word, but you would need the verb in that sentence.

 

[matchlight]

A common objection of neo-conservatives is that the term "separation of church and state" is not found in the U.S. Constitution. This is true also of "the trinity" in the Bible. The term is not found, but the principle is. Obviously, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" contains this principle, but that is not the whole picture. States like the Commonwealth of Virginia had official state religion of Baptist a long time ago. At the time, this was not a violation of the "establishment clause" as the 1st Amendment was not binding on the states, but it was most certainly a violation of religious freedom as it took Jefferson's "Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom" to abolish the state religion.

The term "separation of church and state" gained prominence in American politics after the Supreme Court decision in Everson v Board of Education. If you read this decision and many others, you will understand that the 1st Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was a protection that applied only to the Federal government. Many modern conservatives may find this hard to believe, but a state legislature could actually ban privately owned firearms and it would not be a violation of the 2nd Amendment as it applied only to the Federal government. This is basic "federalism".

After the civil war the 14th Amendment was "ratified" and was the first amendment which stated "No state shall..." The war and specifically this amendment turned the Constitution on it's head and started not only the vast growth in corporate power and corporate personhood "rights", but made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states which the courts expanded more and more especially throughout the 20th Century. These many court decisions will state the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc...is applicable through the 14th Amendment.

People can blame "secular liberals" or whoever all they want, but this goes back to the American civil war. My point is not to say which system was better or worse, but to give understanding to those who do not know this.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not, just by its existence, make any part of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. It was the Supreme Court which used the Due Process Clause of that amendment to apply first one part of the Bill of Rights and then another to the states, in a long series of decisions starting about 1900.

 

[prometeus]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

I present my opinion as you present yours.

That is a lie or a delusion or perhaps both. You have the audacity to pretend to know what exactly God wants.

Moreover, I didn't write the Bible and I didn't tell Jesus what to say.

Right, you just have the delusion that you know exactly what God wants and how others have to understand God.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The meaning of "separation of church and state" has evolved over the years. In 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building and many government officials attended church there up until Lincoln's term. Congress also reviewed and approved a version of the Bible in the 1700s and public school teachers taught scripture to their students. Apparently it didn't mean what many think it means now.

Can you provide a citation? If you are referencing David Barton's revisionist history, it's mostly falsification via selective omission.

 

[prometeus]

Re: &quot;Separation of Church and State&quot;

I would rather shop somewhere else then to imagine someone who doesn't really like me maybe spitting in that wedding cake

Right, because jerks who would spit into someone's food only dislike gays.

 

[Josie]

Can you provide a citation? If you are referencing David Barton's revisionist history, it's mostly falsification via selective omission.

Here's the image from the Bible where Charles Thomson, the Secretary of Congress (and signer of the Declaration of Independence) provided the approval statement:



Whereupon, RESOLVED,
THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an influence of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think Proper.
CHA. THOMSON, Sec'ry."

What would you like to add?

 

[Somerville]

Here's the image from the Bible where Charles Thomson, the Secretary of Congress (and signer of the Declaration of Independence) provided the approval statement:

View attachment 67215077

Whereupon, RESOLVED,
THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an influence of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think Proper.
CHA. THOMSON, Sec'ry."

What would you like to add?

That was the Congress of the Confederation and not the Congress of the United States, which came into existence upon the acceptance of the Constitution. Mr Aitken also asked that early Congress to purchase the Bibles he had printed for distribution to the States and that the Bible "be published under the Authority of Congress,” Congress did neither of those.

 

[Josie]

That was the Congress of the Confederation and not the Congress of the United States, which came into existence upon the acceptance of the Constitution. Mr Aitken also asked that early Congress to purchase the Bibles he had printed for distribution to the States and that the Bible "be published under the Authority of Congress,” Congress did neither of those.

:shrug: Okay.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Here's the image from the Bible where Charles Thomson, the Secretary of Congress (and signer of the Declaration of Independence) provided the approval statement:

View attachment 67215077

Whereupon, RESOLVED,
THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an influence of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think Proper.
CHA. THOMSON, Sec'ry."

What would you like to add?

https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/fake-quotations-congress-on-school-bibles/

This book debunks a bunch of those things:
Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History - Home

I don't like that book's title, but I also don't like the right trying to twist history to prove that the founders intended the USA to be a Christian Nation, or ever recognized it as such. "Jesus" and "Christ" are nowhere in the founding documents, and congress never adopted or promoted a specific religion.

No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools | The Huffington Post

 

[Josie]

https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/fake-quotations-congress-on-school-bibles/

This book debunks a bunch of those things:
Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History - Home

I don't like that book's title, but I also don't like the right trying to twist history to prove that the founders intended the USA to be a Christian Nation, or ever recognized it as such. "Jesus" and "Christ" are nowhere in the founding documents, and congress never adopted or promoted a specific religion.

No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools | The Huffington Post

Are you responding to what I posted or what you wanted me to post?

 

[Somerville]

Re: &quot;Separation of Church and State&quot;

I don't need your hypocritical sarcasm. In the area I lived, the school was formed by the surrounding farm and dairy community about 1900. And it was established on Judeo/Christian principles. And there was a opening of the school day with a reading from a passage of the Bible by one of the students, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the singing of one in a variety of patriotic songs. There was often a general prayer giving thanks over out lunches, but this was often encouraged before we filed down to the lunchroom.

None of this cost anything. And the Bible reading actually acquainted 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., with the reading of Old King James --- something you may not even comprehend today. There was one boy whose parents came from Cuba and he was an "atheist". He was allowed to come into class after the opening exercises ---- his loss not ours.

Oh yes, ostracising kids always works. :roll:

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Are you responding to what I posted or what you wanted me to post?

It was intended as a response to your post, but maybe I misinterpreted your point. I was going to copy the entire rebuttal but the main point has already been made by Sommerville.

 

[Josie]

It was intended as a response to your post, but maybe I misinterpreted your point. I was going to copy the entire rebuttal but the main point has already been made by Sommerville.

And that point didn't refute my point at all, did it?

 

[Somerville]

And that point didn't refute my point at all, did it?

I would say that my post clarified your "point" by noting that the Congress named was not that of the United States of America and that the Congress named did not purchase any of Mr Aitken's Bibles. It may be seen as a bit pedantic but the majority of people reading that "Congress had approved" a Bible, would add a bit of weighting to their perception of what actually took place.

 

[Josie]

I would say that my post clarified your "point" by noting that the Congress named was not that of the United States of America and that the Congress named did not purchase any of Mr Aitken's Bibles. It may be seen as a bit pedantic but the majority of people reading that "Congress had approved" a Bible, would add a bit of weighting to their perception of what actually took place.

I didn't say that Congress purchased the Bibles, but that they reviewed and approved it....which they did.

 

[Somerville]

I didn't say that Congress purchased the Bibles, but that they reviewed and approved it....which they did.

You are correct, that is what you wrote - yet you have not acknowledged that the Congress which "reviewed and approved" the Aitken Bible was not the Congress of the United States.

 

[Josie]

You are correct, that is what you wrote - yet you have not acknowledged that the Congress which "reviewed and approved" the Aitken Bible was not the Congress of the United States.

It was the governing body of America in the late 1700s. Yes, it wasn't the Congress established in the Constitution since it hadn't been ratified yet.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: &quot;Separation of Church and State&quot;

Good Latin word, but you would need the verb in that sentence.

Thank you. The verb in that sentence can be found between 'have' and 'usurpation'. :mrgreen:

 

[American]

Re: &quot;Separation of Church and State&quot;

Oddly, no student was forced to read from the Bible; however, I imagine even you were required to read something akin to "Dick, Jane & Spot" --- "Alice, Jerry & Jip" --- perhaps the "Bobbsey Twins" at some point in your little life... What are they telling you to read in College?

I'm not in college.

 

[LittleNipper]

Re: &quot;Separation of Church and State&quot;

That is a lie or a delusion or perhaps both. You have the audacity to pretend to know what exactly God wants.

Right, you just have the delusion that you know exactly what God wants and how others have to understand God.

I at least believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is good for training, reproof, correction, doctrine and educating. Where exactly do you get your values and opinion from, if I might ask.

 

[prometeus]

Re: &quot;Separation of Church and State&quot;

I at least believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

That is not the least. As I said and I repeat, you have the audacity to pretend to know what exactly God wants and you have the delusion that you know exactly what God wants and how others have to understand God.

 

[Somerville]

Re: &quot;Separation of Church and State&quot;

I at least believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is good for training, reproof, correction, doctrine and educating. Where exactly do you get your values and opinion from, if I might ask.

"training, reproof, correction" You couldn't possibly mean that young boys who say silly words should be mauled by wild animals, now could you?

2 Kings 2
23 He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, ‘Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!’ 24 When he turned round and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and then returned to Samaria.

That was the prophet Elisha, by the way.

 

[LittleNipper]

Re: &quot;Separation of Church and State&quot;

That is not the least. As I said and I repeat, you have the audacity to pretend to know what exactly God wants and you have the delusion that you know exactly what God wants and how others have to understand God.

And you have the audacity to totally ignore GOD's word. 1 Timothy 2:4-6Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

4 God wants everyone to be saved and to fully understand the truth. 5 There is only one God, and there is only one way that people can reach God. That way is through Christ Jesus, who as a man 6 gave himself to pay for everyone to be free. This is the message that was given to us at just the right time.

Can you deny that GOD wishes everyone to be saved? Is that not what GOD wants? How do I know? The Bible tells me so. Read the Bible --- God's will is spelled out time and again. It is those who do not wish to believe in the Bible that are misguided...