Should we have stronger separation of church and state?

[Gordy327]

Imagine...you are at a school where there is school prayer. Time is allotted for individuals to start their school day with a personal request for calm, peace, love, support, for a better school day. Everyone is free to pray or to meditate or to peacefully collect their own thoughts...and out af 2378 students in that school, 17 of them are sitting seeting smashing themselves in the ***** muttering I hate them...I hate this...I HATE you people....**** you **** you **** youuuuu!!!! Look what you are doing to me!!! BLLLARRRAGGHHHH!!!!!

Now tell me...who has the problem?

Those who don't respect the separation if church and state, including in public schools.

 

[Gordy327]

I view ”one nation, under God” to mean that our (federal?) government isn’t the the ultimate source of our (basic human?) rights, but was put in place to protect and defend them.

Human rights is a human construct with respect to society.

 

[Luce]

Imagine...you are at a school where there is school prayer.

A madrassa?

 

[Lisa]

Imagine...you are at a school where there is school prayer. Time is allotted for individuals to start their school day with a personal request for calm, peace, love, support, for a better school day. Everyone is free to pray or to meditate or to peacefully collect their own thoughts...and out af 2378 students in that school, 17 of them are sitting seeting smashing themselves in the ***** muttering I hate them...I hate this...I HATE you people....**** you **** you **** youuuuu!!!! Look what you are doing to me!!! BLLLARRRAGGHHHH!!!!!

Now tell me...who has the problem?

And you as a christian are forced to kneel and pray to Mecca or face physical punishment.

Religion doesn't belong in public school.

 

[BabyAugustine]

You are shocked only because you don't understand the idea of separation, the values of the Founding, and the nature of conscience
So the protection of conscience was paramount among the Founders. If anyone wants to degate that I am ready.
Also the courts have repudiated your understanding Chief Justice Rehnquist
Justice Rehnquist attacked the Court’s reliance on Jefferson’s understanding of the religion clauses, saying,“ There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson [v. Board of Education].” Rehnquist added that the Court’s establishment clause jurisprudence “has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.”
Finally you overlook , conveniently, your own religious views for ,legally, what you just said is RELIGIOUS

 

[BabyAugustine]

Imagine what? Our organic law refutes you
I want to note the reference to education in Article 3 of the the Northwest Ordinance of 1787:

Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

You not wanting to pray is not even relevant. So don't pray

 

[BabyAugustine]

Those who don't respect the separation if church and state, including in public schools.

Everything that anyone could adduce on this quesiton is a human construct, but not all are ONLY human constructs.
So the Declaration says that our Creator gave us unalienable rights. And that government exists to protecct those rights.
I say, if you reject that and pretend to argue as an American, you simple are not.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu - tax 'em all. They've profitted off that shelter far too long.

 

[Lisa]

Imagine what? Our organic law refutes you
I want to note the reference to education in Article 3 of the the Northwest Ordinance of 1787:

Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

You not wanting to pray is not even relevant. So don't pray

1787 was 4 years before the US Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights was passed. The US was still operating under the Articles of Confederation at the time.

Do I need to remind you of the words of President Thomas Jefferson as he explains to the Danbury Baptists the meaning of the establishment Clause in the first Amendment?

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


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. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & 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 & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

LOC.gov

Jefferson and other framers were very clear about the wall of separation of church and state,

As to the invocation of Jefferson, we know that when he and James Madison first proposed the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom (the frame and basis of the later First Amendment to the Constitution) in 1779, the preamble began, “Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free.” Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words “Jesus Christ” for “Almighty God” in this opening passage and were overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia’s representatives wanted the law “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

Monticello.org


The Creator that Jefferson referenced in the Declaration was not the god of Abraham in the Christian. Jefferson rejected that religion. He and John Adams both thought that it was an absurd myth.

.

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding...

{Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823}”
​

― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

A quote from Letters of Thomas Jefferson

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of...

www.goodreads.com

 

[BabyAugustine]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

But that can't be true...It's about 250 years later and this is how things are. So let me , from long experience with people like you, interpret what you mean : You mean that even if over a long period and many millions of people resulting in the current state, you are willing to disregard rights and rule of law and voting and citizenship solely because you think you should be in charge Am I getting warm.... you bet I am !!!

 

[BabyAugustine]

1787 was 4 years before the US Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights was passed. The US was still operating under the Articles of Confederation at the time.

Do I need to remind you of the words of President Thomas Jefferson as he explains to the Danbury Baptists the meaning of the establishment Clause in the first Amendment?


LOC.gov

Jefferson and other framers were very clear about the wall of separation of church and state,

Monticello.org


The Creator that Jefferson referenced in the Declaration was not the god of Abraham in the Christian. Jefferson rejected that religion. He and John Adams both thought that it was an absurd myth.

A quote from Letters of Thomas Jefferson

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of...

www.goodreads.com

I repeat : I can tell you don't know history or civics. And you ignore even a Supreme Court Chief Justice's view

Justice Rehnquist attacked the Court’s reliance on Jefferson’s understanding of the religion clauses, saying,“ There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’

 

[Lisa]

I repeat : I can tell you don't know history or civics. And you ignore even a Supreme Court Chief Justice's view

Justice Rehnquist attacked the Court’s reliance on Jefferson’s understanding of the religion clauses, saying,“ There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’

Renquist was a damn liar because it was Jefferson and Madison who wrote the First Amendment.

 

[Gordy327]

I repeat : I can tell you don't know history or civics. And you ignore even a Supreme Court Chief Justice's view

Justice Rehnquist attacked the Court’s reliance on Jefferson’s understanding of the religion clauses, saying,“ There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’

Demonstrably false! Jefferson & Madison were quite clear about separation and the SCOTUS affirmed it.

Everything that anyone could adduce on this quesiton is a human construct, but not all are ONLY human constructs.
So the Declaration says that our Creator gave us unalienable rights. And that government exists to protecct those rights.
I say, if you reject that and pretend to argue as an American, you simple are not.

The DoI only establishes our sovereignty as a nation appealing to the King of England and as head of the Church of England. It does not establish our system of government or laws. That's under the purview of the Constitution, which makes no reference to any "creator" or god.

 

[EnigmaO01]

In a church yard I occasionally pass on a major highway during the 2015 presidential campaign it was littered with Trump signs. And I've had my Catholic Deacon tell me who to vote for. He didn't come out with a name but he referred to voting against the candidate that was "for abortion." He was referring to John Kerry albeit he wasn't "for' abortion. This should not be.

 

[BabyAugustine]

Renquist was a damn liar because it was Jefferson and Madison who wrote the First Amendment.

Wrong again in a HUGE way Everyk part of that is pre-Constitution

 

[BabyAugustine]

Demonstrably false! Jefferson & Madison were quite clear about separation and the SCOTUS affirmed it.
The DoI only establishes our sovereignty as a nation appealing to the King of England and as head of the Church of England. It does not establish our system of government or laws. That's under the purview of the Constitution, which makes no reference to any "creator" or god.

TOTALLY FAlSE and provable by 6 cumulative arguiments
1) The Declaration is equallly an organic law of the USA

• U.S. Code (2007) defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

2) Specifically REPUDIATED during the admission of States to the Union
In 1889, the congressional act establishing the states of NorthDakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington required thattheir state constitutions "not be repugnant to the Constitutionof the United States and the Declaration of Independence
3) Legal separation was declared by Congress on July 2, two days before it adopted the Declaration of Independence.
4) IT is the thought of many Justices right up to the present day
According to Thomas, the Declaration of Independence provides the principlesfor understanding the Constitution. See Clarence Thomas, Toward a Plain Reading' ofthe Constitution-The Declaration of Independence in Constitutional Interpretation, 30How. L.J. 983, 985-87, 994-95 (1987)
5) You seem to think the D of I was out of the ordinary, IT was not I remember reading that there were scores of Declarations of Independence prior to the one you are speaking of
The colony of North Carolina released the first of these statements on April 12, 1776, just a few months before the national proclamation was ratified. Virginia, Rhode Island, and New Jersey were among the other colonies that declared declarations of independence prior to July 4, 1776.
6) Finally the D of I was basic not only to the Constitution but it embodied the thought of most of the country and had nothing new.
Consider what Jefferson said many years later ...

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee (1825)​

This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.

All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. …

 

[Mike1950]

Actually, referencing a Judaeo-Christian-Muslim God is establishing a religion if you are requiring everyone to participate. Such as the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. By making that a government mandate they have established a government religion. The phrase "In God We Trust," however, is not establishing a government religion since it is not mandated by government that everyone must recite that phrase. The phrase "In God We Trust" should not exist in the first place, but it is better than the mandated "under God" in the Pledge which is blatantly unconstitutional.

None of these references came from our founding fathers. Almost all of them came from the 1950 era. Our Constitution makes no mention of God or Jesus. Some wanted it to make a bigger deal of God and Jesus but the overwhelming majority were dead set against it because they had seen first hand how bad things always were when Church and State were combined. If you want to know the prevailing attitude concerning all of this read The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. It was written by Jefferson and pushed through into law by Madison. You know, our 3rd and 4th Presidents. People did not come to the new world because they didn't think that there wasn't enough government involvement in religion where they came from . Yes they did persecute Jews, Muslims, etc. but all of the different Christian sects also persecuted each other whenever they had the power. The truth of the matter is that all of the Abrahamic religions persecute each other any chance they get. And just like Christians of today, they feel they are being persecuted if they aren't allowed to persecute anyone they would like to.

 

[Safiel]

I am a non theist and I do oppose blatant theocratic crap, like Alabama and IVF.

On the other hand, I am fine with certain long standing practices.

We must understand the ORIGINAL purpose of the Establishment Clause. It was intended to prevent establishment of a national religion. It was ALSO intended to prevent Congress from DISESTABLISHING official State Churches, several of which still existed in 1792. Of course, the last State Churches were disestablished by the 1850's.

I am of the considered opinion that since the PURPOSE the Establishment Clause is to restrain Congress, NOT protect an individual right, it should NOT have been incorporated against the States and in fact should be disincorporated.

I believe that protections for both non-theists and minority religion theists can be sufficiently protected via the Free Exercise Clause alone.

I do not consider rote recitations, such as In God We Trust or Under God to be unconstitutional. I don't support them either, but don't take constitutional offense to them. I do not consider the institution of the Legislative Prayer to be unconstitutional, provided that alternative viewpoints are given due opportunity to give said prayer. Religion in the public square is fine, provided that all religious comers are accommodated.

I WILL raise hell (so to speak) over blatantly theocratic crap such as took place in Alabama.

I would say that I would stick with the current regime, with minor changes and tweaks.

 

[dockside]

Change God to “higher power” (in any language) and my point remains the same.

Guess what? I don't believe there is a "higher power" that we can trust or has anything to say or think about human beings. I believe there is a force stronger than anything humans can exert, but don't invoke it as I don't believe that a force has any control - it just is.

 

[StarvedForChange]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

No, we just shouldn't buckle under to the maga/Christian white nationalists' goal to remove the barrier.

 

[Glitch]

None of these references came from our founding fathers. Almost all of them came from the 1950 era. Our Constitution makes no mention of God or Jesus. Some wanted it to make a bigger deal of God and Jesus but the overwhelming majority were dead set against it because they had seen first hand how bad things always were when Church and State were combined. If you want to know the prevailing attitude concerning all of this read The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. It was written by Jefferson and pushed through into law by Madison. You know, our 3rd and 4th Presidents. People did not come to the new world because they didn't think that there wasn't enough government involvement in religion where they came from . Yes they did persecute Jews, Muslims, etc. but all of the different Christian sects also persecuted each other whenever they had the power. The truth of the matter is that all of the Abrahamic religions persecute each other any chance they get. And just like Christians of today, they feel they are being persecuted if they aren't allowed to persecute anyone they would like to.

Who the hell cares where they came from? Neither phrase should exist in a secular government.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

no one said we have to be a secular state. SCOTUS has been clear that you are allowed to have your beliefs and proselytize

The founding fathers wanted the United States to be a secular nation. This is evident in the comments they made.

But you cant use any religious test or coerce thru policy or treat religious and non-religious not the same

Religion does not belong in the government.

Im sure you understand the historical Judeo-Christian influence on the country in terms of symbols and culture

It culture is one thing, interfering in governmental affairs is another.

 

[Mike1950]

Combining Church and State is really bad as history has taught us over and over. Considering that the Church part his is the Church of MAGA is even infinitely worse since they don't seem to have a clue about what Jesus taught.

 

[Somerville]

My sig line is slightly relevant to this old thread

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

Good. And all restrictions on such should be rolled back.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do.

Bad, change that

But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

America wasn’t founded by anyone other then Christians

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

Obviously there is no such thing as a secular state and what you are really complaining about is that the leftist religion hasn’t fully supplanted traditional religion