- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 764
- Location
- Central Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Batman said:Show me in the constitution where it says 'seperation of church and state.'
It doesn't. The government is not to impose religion. Having a display of commandments or reference to God is not making citizens bow down. The constitution says nothing about the church being unable to be involved with the government.
Your responding to someone who posted his comments on this thread over a year ago...FredFlash said:Dear Batman:
You will find the separation of church and state in the Constitution right where James Madison said it is. Have you ever heard of James Madison?
The government is not to impose or even influence in any manner whatsoever religion (The duty which we owe to our Creator). I will take occasion to express my high admiration and unqualified approbation of that inestimable principle established in the Constitution—of leaving the religion of the people as free as the air the breathe from government influence.
A government displaying commandments of a religious nature, with the intent to advise the people that they should obey them, is an arrogant infringement upon the free exercise of religion, an establishment by civil authority of duties which are owed to the Creator, and impious and sinful trespasses upon the authority of Almighty God.
The duty which we owe to our Creator should have no influence whatsoever on our government because the government has no authority at all over those matters. For example: A Senator's opinions and actions regarding prayer should have no effect on the government because it should never be involved in matters of prayer or any matter of religon, except to stay out of that area - because it belongs to God alone.
Only a fool, a Federalist, a demon worshipper or a Calvinist would be foolish enough to trespass upon the prerogatives of Almighty God. Benjamin Jefferson Phlash.
FVF
earthworm said:To me, your input is most valuable in this matter, Nurse - we can learn much from foreign governments and people.. During the 1700s we tried not to make the same mistakes the Europeans made - but the learning process is continual, when it stops, a nation dies.....
IMO, there is no separation of church and state, and never was.
Our constitution is set up to more or less keep things in balance...
In the 18th century, the atheist was smart enough to stay underground, now, things are less repressive, and they are surfacing..and complaining about little meaningless things - that hurt no one....
disneydude said:When a Supreme Court justice (or any judge for that matter) places their hand on the bible they pledge to uphold the Constitution, they don't pledge to uphold the Bible. So, therein lies the problem and the solution - in other words, not every reference to God/Religion is a violation of the Constitution, however, when it becomes doctrine rather than a historical reference we cross the line of Church/State. The problem is not with having references to God/Religion, the problem lies with right-wing hypocrites trying to force their doctrine onto the masses.
danarhea said:The separation clause is clearly intended to make it so that no government can force any particular religion down the throats of its citizens. Freedom of religion was why many came here from Europe in the first place, but what was the first thing they did? Put in the stocks those who would not worship according to how they saw fit. These kinds of abuses were what our forefathers were addressing when they created the establishment clause. On the other hand, putting up a statue commemorating God is not what our forefathers were referring to. Nobody is being forced to worship those statues, are they?
Also, how about what is on our money? - "In God We Trust". The statues and the phrases on our money have nothing to do with the reason our forefathers created the establishment clause, and since, in my honest opinion, the establishment clause does not apply in this case, then based on the 10th Amendment, it would be up to the individual states and localities to determine what symbols they want on their property.
Batman said:Show me in the constitution where it says 'separation of church and state.'
It doesn't. The government is not to impose religion. Having a display of commandments or reference to God is not making citizens bow down. The constitution says nothing about the church being unable to be involved with the government.
earthworm said:I agree with Batmen, his argument makes sense.
Back 200 years ago we had no openly practicing Islamics nor atheists, and the Constitution was written for those times - which makes sense..
We are supposed to be a democracy with majority rule.
If 75%(or even 51%) of the people want, or do not object to a Koran being displayed on public property, then it should be displayed...What is on public property should be determined by the people willing to participate in the meetings and voting; NOT a few overactive atheists, or their supporters...
earthworm said:I agree with Batmen, his argument makes sense.
Back 200 years ago we had no openly practicing Islamics nor atheists, and the Constitution was written for those times - which makes sense..
We are supposed to be a democracy with majority rule.
If 75%(or even 51%) of the people want, or do not object to a Koran being displayed on public property, then it should be displayed...What is on public property should be determined by the people willing to participate in the meetings and voting; NOT a few overactive atheists, or their supporters...
disneydude said:When a Supreme Court justice (or any judge for that matter) places their hand on the bible they pledge to uphold the Constitution, they don't pledge to uphold the Bible. So, therein lies the problem and the solution - in other words, not every reference to God/Religion is a violation of the Constitution, however, when it becomes doctrine rather than a historical reference we cross the line of Church/State. The problem is not with having references to God/Religion, the problem lies with right-wing hypocrites trying to force their doctrine onto the masses.
earthworm said:I agree with Batmen, his argument makes sense.
Back 200 years ago we had no openly practicing Islamics nor atheists, and the Constitution was written for those times - which makes sense..
We are supposed to be a democracy with majority rule.
If 75%(or even 51%) of the people want, or do not object to a Koran being displayed on public property, then it should be displayed...What is on public property should be determined by the people willing to participate in the meetings and voting; NOT a few overactive atheists, or their supporters...
SouthernDemocrat said:One of the objectives of the framers was to create a nation where a majority could not impose tyranny on a minority. The principle of the Separation of Church and State is simply that the government cannot be used as a vehicle to compel, promote, or endorse religious beliefs. It’s simply that. A government official, judge, or politician can hold any religious belief that he or she chooses and worship in any way that he or she chooses. However, they cannot use the government to promote or endorse their religious beliefs. A separation of church and state is an absolute necessity in a free society. Never in the history of civilization has marriage of religion and government resulted in a more righteous government. The founding fathers knew that and created a wall between the two.
mnpollock said:Funny enough, I'd doubt that 51% would vote in support of ANY religious icons being displayed in courthouses. The assumption that because you are christian you would want the 10 commandments displayed is false. Its not an aethiest thing or a matter of supporting them, its a matter of americans not wanting a religious rule and as such are very careful when others try to implant religion (in any form) into the gov't, especially in places of judgement.
Alias said:I believe it was also the founding fathers intention to make sure there would be no state religion like in England. The liberals have it all wrong. They want government to limit freedom of religous expression, when in fact it was the founding father's intention to keep government out of all expressions of religion.
vauge said:Our country was founded on Christian principles. To deny that, is to deny the very existance of the US!!
Alias said:I believe it was also the founding fathers intention to make sure there would be no state religion like in England. The liberals have it all wrong. They want government to limit freedom of religous expression, when in fact it was the founding father's intention to keep government out of all expressions of religion.
Stinger said:What founding principles of this country are unique to and indicative of Christianity?
Where is freedom of speech in the Christian Bible?
How about the right to keep and bear arms?
How about freedom of religion, to believe in whatever God you choose?
Where does the Bible lay out a Constitutional Republican form of government?
Trial by jury in there?
Who about Habeous Corpus?
Those are just a couple of the founding principles of this country so start with those. I always here the pro government religion involvment side make the statement you made but never have been able to get anyone to show it.
Stinger said:And viseversa, they were very aware of what happened in Europe when the church was a very powerful political influence. Faith and politics do not mix, they didn't then they don't now.
And what on earth some religious conservatives want government involved in their religion is beyond me. They have their churches and private property to display anything they want to display and teach anything they want to teach, why would they want government to be involved since invarible anything government gets involved it takes over.
Stinger said:And viseversa, they were very aware of what happened in Europe when the church was a very powerful political influence. Faith and politics do not mix, they didn't then they don't now.
And what on earth some religious conservatives want government involved in their religion is beyond me. They have their churches and private property to display anything they want to display and teach anything they want to teach, why would they want government to be involved since invarible anything government gets involved it takes over.
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?