"Separation of Church and State..."

[DragonGunner]

So where did this come from? Is it in the Constitution? What does it mean? When did it become law? If it was passed in 1947 by the Supreme Court, then what took it so long? Why did two different Supreme Courts in prior years strike it down? If "Seperation of Church an State" came from Jefferson, what was his interpetation, an did the 1947 Supreme Court agree with him? Did the Courts get this right?

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State

 

[strahd71]

the original thought was to keep government out of the church never to keep the church out of government.

at this point the whole point is unconstitutional it seems because every other religion has a voice but christians are not allowed the same.

we'll kiss islams butt but attack christianity at every opportunity.

jake

 

[jve153]

it is not in the constitution, we have the freedom OF religion in our first amendment, not the freedom FROM religion

 

[cbseniour]

The constitution tries to keep government from encroaching on the practice of religion. As is commonly said today freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Many of the framers but not all were religious men and they put religious references in thier writings.
Most of the law of the US is based on English common law which in turn was originally based on church doctrine. The Church gave us most of the ideals we try to live by even if we are not christian or of any other religion. Without these rules no society could long survive only anarcy and the rule of the strongest.
Today religion is under attack by those who don't understand that it provides the structure of our and their lives.

 

[traderdan]

So where did this come from? Is it in the Constitution? What does it mean? When did it become law? If it was passed in 1947 by the Supreme Court, then what took it so long? Why did two different Supreme Courts in prior years strike it down? If "Seperation of Church an State" came from Jefferson, what was his interpetation, an did the 1947 Supreme Court agree with him? Did the Courts get this right?

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State

I am not an expert on this subject...or any other...But I believe the founders of this country wanted to be sure that no religious sect/group/denomination could rule by merit of a majority.It is impossible to eliminate religious thought in Government because governments are made up of elected individuals who have a religious point of view.Atheism,Agnosticism,Humanism-These all promote some pattern of thought just as Christianity,Judaism,Islam...The founders of our Republic/Democracy felt that all should be able to worship or not according to their conscience and desire.

 

[redlegrod]

I am not an expert on this subject...or any other...But I believe the founders of this country wanted to be sure that no religious sect/group/denomination could rule by merit of a majority.It is impossible to eliminate religious thought in Government because governments are made up of elected individuals who have a religious point of view.Atheism,Agnosticism,Humanism-These all promote some pattern of thought just as Christianity,Judaism,Islam...The founders of our Republic/Democracy felt that all should be able to worship or not according to their conscience and desire.

I agree. From everything that I have studied and read, the founders were trying to prevent religious persecution their fathers experienced in Europe. Ask your self this--where would any law come from if it wasn't from religion?

 

[bigg cheese]

wall builders is a great source of information on the subject. I watched most of his series during my high schooling, as well as much of the reading material.

 

[Scutter01]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[J_Wales]

More revisions from progressives.... that is where it came from.

 

[J_Wales]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's the part in red that seems so easily lost on progressive pigs.

 

[David]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.

In other words, you are free to practice any religion you choose, but the government may not sanction or endorse ANY religion. That includes christianity, regardless of the number of christians in the country.

That we are a nation made up primarily of christians is a demographic fact. The idea (in a political context anyway) that we are a christian nation is entirely unconstitutional.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

You all need to stop bring up all these religious threads, youre going to get me banned

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It's all of a piece with the strategy, whether conscious or unconscious, of subordinating the individual to the State. Religion and philosophy (and education) were the core of the foundation of our self-government "experiment" and a core of common moral values is essential to the survival of individual liberty as well as to the survival of a society based on individual freedoms. Various forces (used in a generic sense) have combined to chip away at the prohibitions placed in the Constitution designed to limit the federal government's power to subordinate the individual's freedoms in favor of the power of the State. In order to get a free people to give up their individual rights, it is necessary to break down, in various ways, the moral underpinnings of their society. The major push to break down our societal underpinnings (as opposed to external restrictions of freedoms imposed during the Civil War and WWII) seems to have accelerated in the 50s or 60s, perhaps as a consequence of Communist attempts to undermine our society in various ways, or it may be that human nature itself is just incapable of maintaining the concept of disciplined individual liberty for very long. At any rate, our society has deteriorated far from the general levels of civility and morality present during my youth, and the trend seems to be accelerating.

 

[Pocketman]

So where did this come from? Is it in the Constitution? What does it mean? When did it become law? If it was passed in 1947 by the Supreme Court, then what took it so long? Why did two different Supreme Courts in prior years strike it down? If "Seperation of Church an State" came from Jefferson, what was his interpetation, an did the 1947 Supreme Court agree with him? Did the Courts get this right?

The framers provided for SCOTUS to reinforce or trump anything the founders, including Jefferson, said. We may disagree with a ruling but the Constitution provided for the courts, knowing everything wouldn't be completely covered in the Constitution.

Personally, I think the opinion from the 1947 New Jersey case was correct, but the ruling was not. Bottom line, the state cannot promote religion. End of story. At issue here is the all or nothing attitude that many have adopted. There is nothing that precludes a person from exercising his/her faith in public. Religion is an individual's right, not a right of the state. Prayers are allowed in schools, just not state sponsored prayer, which is the way it should be. How is it that prayers have been offered in the U.S. Congress since 1774? It's because the chaplains accommodate people of all faiths.

From the SCOTUS opinion:

No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.

Who made an issue of Kennedy's, Romney's and Obama's religions?

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

Who's being influenced by the Evangelicals?
Imans have no business preaching politics either!

It is a false notion that Christians are somehow entitled because the the country was supposedly founded on "Christian principals." We Christians have lost ground in this area because of ignorance of the law and/or our own lack of enthusiasm. I do not expect, and do not want, the government to promote my religious beliefs.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

In other words, you are free to practice any religion you choose, but the government may not sanction or endorse ANY religion. That includes christianity, regardless of the number of christians in the country.

That we are a nation made up primarily of christians is a demographic fact. The idea (in a political context anyway) that we are a christian nation is entirely unconstitutional.

First of all, the idea that government may not sanction or endorse any religion is far, far away from any "wall of separation" envisioned by any of the Founders, and the current trend of law and judicial has swung away from "endorsing" in any normal sense of the term, into "banning" which was definitely not the intent of the Founders nor of the First Amendment.

Secondly, our history and philosophy of the laws of this nation are largely based on Judeo-Christian principles and the morality that underpinned those principles. It is unconstitutional to forbid the practice of religion, but it is not unconstitutional to practice a religion, no matter who is offended by it.

 

[David]

You all need to stop bring up all these religious threads, youre going to get me banned

I generally try to avoid these types of threads and usually regret getting involved in them. I ought to know better. This is the kind of stuff I come here to get away from.

I'm out of here.....gonna go talk about guns.....

 

[Kagnew]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The Constitution was merely worded so as to prohibit the establishment of an official State religion (such as the Church of England, whose titular head is the ruling monarch). It says nothing about no religious involvement with the government.

 

[Kagnew]

The framers provided for SCOTUS to reinforce or trump anything the founders, including Jefferson, said. We may disagree with a ruling but the Constitution provided for the courts, knowing everything wouldn't be completely covered in the Constitution.

Hmmm. Don't know that I've ever heard of that interpretation before. I believe you might have your foot a bit off the bag.

 

[LEaSH]

I generally try to avoid these types of threads and usually regret getting involved in them. I ought to know better. This is the kind of stuff I come here to get away from.

I'm out of here.....gonna go talk about guns.....

Wisdom.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I am an agnostic and religion plays no role in my life.

This does not prevent me from being able to read plain English.

The government can't create a state religion. They can't make me adhere to any particular religion. They can't tell me that I CAN'T adhere to any particular religion. They can't penalize me for having NO religion.

If a city hall somewhere puts a Nativity Scene on the lawn, no LAW has been passed respecting an establishment of religion. A law either requires action or prohibits it. The presence of a Nativity scene does neither. It doesn't harm me, nor does it offend me. It has no effect upon my quality of life. It in no way interferes with my civil rights.

If some judge chooses to put a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom the situation is the same: no LAW has been passed respecting an establishment of religion. It's no skin off my nose.

What's so damned complicated about this?