"Separation of Church and State..."

[Carmelbythecorn]

"secular as we see it now is the most intolerant of the religion's out there"

What?

" We can't speak about global warming because it's been 'decided."
HUH?

"We can't have nativity scenes because some are 'offended,"

you can have it all day long, just not on state property. if they tried to put up a budha on state property you would ***** until they took it down.


"we can't teach creationism because that's not 'science' (though admittedly no one was actually there and it's just as valid a theory as evolution...which is still a theory)"

Very wrong, creationism is not a theory, its an idea, a hypothesis. You are using the word theory wrong. In its true context theory is as close to fact as one can be. Just as gravity, time, etc. To be a theory a hypothesis has to be tested, peer reviewed and tested some more. If your hypothesis doesn't pan out its disregarded, or you "do better science" and find your problem and then work to fix it. a person has a scientific hypothesis, works to prove it, then gives his findings to several different groups/people and they try to disprove it. If they can't boom its a theory. Creationism is not a theory, and holds no scientific ground. To say that is it and does, is ignorant


"we can't pray in schools"

yes, yes, you can. you can pray till you wear holes in the knees of your pants, pray for A's pray to make the cheerleading squad, pray to not get beatin up by the bullys. Have at it. The school just can't dictate a dedicated prayer time etc.

Why can't the display occur on State property? If Buddhists want to put up a display on state property, have at it! You are incorrect sir. I have no problem with that at all, and neither do most Christians. What law prohibits such?

theory |ˈTHēərē, ˈTHi(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. theories )
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There are two sciences and it is you that have the two confused. The two are operational science and historical (origins) science.

• Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas (theories) in the present.
• Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and creation.

Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science.

Finally, if there is a time of prayer with no specific prayer or religion advocated, what is the harm in that?

 

[Denny347]

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?

Yeah, I concur. Pretty much sums it up.

 

[Denny347]

Well said, and pretty much how I feel. I have never understood why people get so upset about things like that. Seeing a religious symbol does not equate to being forced to follow that religion.

I never understood the "offensive" aspect of that stuff either. I believe "X" but seeing a religious symbol for "Y" or "Z" does not bother me in the least. You want to bow your head in prayer before a ceremony...have at it, some people are just wound too tight...religious or not.

 

[Pocketman]

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.

The OP stated the court got this decision "wrong." Since ~1802, the Supreme Court has had the final say in interpreting the Constitution. Their ruling may differ from our opinion, or even Jefferson's, but it cannot be "wrong." Perhaps a little research on Chief Justice John Marshall is in order?

 

[J_Wales]

"Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."
-Webster

 

[CountryBoy1981]

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.

It does not say endorse, only establish. What this meant was to prevent another Anglican church, nothing more, nothing less...

 

[CountryBoy1981]

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.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. If the liberals had not re-written our history books and actually allowed school children to read the original sources everyone would know this.

 

[bigg cheese]

The OP stated the court got this decision "wrong." Since ~1802, the Supreme Court has had the final say in interpreting the Constitution. Their ruling may differ from our opinion, or even Jefferson's, but it cannot be "wrong." Perhaps a little research on Chief Justice John Marshall is in order?

Since when is man infallible?

I understand where you're going with it that there is no right or wrong, and I simply disagree. If the constitution says the sky is blue, and the courts decide it is really plaid, they are wrong. The American left packed the courts with those that would espouse their views, not represent the Constitution.

I will obey the rulings of the judges because if I don't, I go to jail, not because they are right.

I am of the opinion that we are very near to being a police state. I hope we do not get there, but when we have a Constitution that is regularly

disregarded by all three branches of government, it doesn't look good.

To sum it up:

Consensus does NOT equal fact.

 

[DragonGunner]

The OP stated the court got this decision "wrong." Since ~1802, the Supreme Court has had the final say in interpreting the Constitution. Their ruling may differ from our opinion, or even Jefferson's, but it cannot be "wrong." Perhaps a little research on Chief Justice John Marshall is in order?

Two Supreme Courts said "NO" to Seperation of Church an State...not until 1947 did a Supreme Court say it was "Right"......2 said it was Wrong, an one said it was Right......so which one at what time was right or wrong?

Marshall....please.

 

[Pocketman]

Since when is man infallible?

I understand where you're going with it that there is no right or wrong, and I simply disagree. If the constitution says the sky is blue, and the courts decide it is really plaid, they are wrong. The American left packed the courts with those that would espouse their views, not represent the Constitution.

I will obey the rulings of the judges because if I don't, I go to jail, not because they are right.

I am of the opinion that we are very near to being a police state. I hope we do not get there, but when we have a Constitution that is regularly

disregarded by all three branches of government, it doesn't look good.

To sum it up:

Consensus does NOT equal fact.

I don't think you're implying court decisions are right only if they agree with you, but your statement could be interpreted as such. There are those on the left who would present the same argument form the opposite perspective. Many feel SCOTUS placed George W. Bush into office against the will of the people. The point is, we are a nation of laws made by and enforced by imperfect and diverse people. Most of us have heard the old joke about opinions and lawyers. The Constitution (and John Marshall) has given the Supreme Court the final interpretation. If they say the sky is plaid, Congress can revisit the issue and clarify the language.

Getting back to the separation issue, the gist is government isn't to interfere with religion and religion isn't to dictate to government. Rather than allow a manger on the courthouse square, we have chosen to disallow all religious stuff. Saves making decisions when the neighborhood iman or rabbi asks to have a display.

 

[armedindy]

wasnt america kind of a medley of religions in its beginning? therefore separation would prohibit one sect from being more influential than another? that is basically just a guess, so let me know if i am just completely wrong

 

[thebishopp]

Jefferson:

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

"Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state." "

Mr. President

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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

 

[thebishopp]

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.

While I agree it is freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion...

If by the "church" you mean "christianity":

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Cooper, 1814

 

[MTC]

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.

Accurate, if brief, synopsis.

 

[thebishopp]

James Madison
(1751-1836; a "founder" and principal author, U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; 4th U.S. President, 1809-1817) on religion and government.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect. (James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774, as quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 37.)

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J. M. on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes. (James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments," as reprinted in Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 [October, 1946], p. 555. The parenthetical note at the end, which lacks a closed parenthesis in Fleet, was apparently a note Madison made to himself regarding examples of improper encroachment to use when the "Detatched Memoranda" were edited and published, and seems to imply clearly that Madison supported taxing churches. )

Madison did foresee the danger that minor deviations from the constitutional path would deepen into dangerous precedents. He took care of one of them by his veto [in 1811] of the appropriation for a Baptist church. Others he dealt with in his "Essay on Monopolies," unpublished until 1946. Here is what he wrote: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment ... ?" The appointments, he said, were also a palpable violation of equal rights. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? "To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor." The problem, said the author of the First Amendment, was how to prevent "this step beyond the landmarks of power [from having] the effect of a legitimate precedent." Rather than let that happen, it would "be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [the law takes no account of trifles]." Or, he said (likewise in Latin), class it with faults that result from carelessness or that human nature could scarcely avoid." "Better also," he went on, "to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion." ... The deviations from constitutional principles went further: "Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed. Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers." (Irving Brant, The Bill of Rights: Its Origin and Meaning, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1965, pp. 423-424. Brant gives the source of "Essay on Monopolies" as Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 [October, 1946], pp. 554-562.)

And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. (James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822; published in The Complete Madison: His Basic Writings, ed. by Saul K. Padover, New York: Harper & Bros., 1953.)

The only ultimate protection for religious liberty in a country like ours, Madison pointed out--echoing Jefferson;--is public opinion: a firm and pervading opinion that the First Amendment works. "Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 56. Madison's words, according to Gaustad, are from his letter of 10 July 1822 to Edward Livingston.)

At age eighty-one [therefore, in 1832?], both looking back at the American experience and looking forward with vision sharpened by practical experience, Madison summed up his views of church and state relations in a letter to a "Reverend Adams": "I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others." (Robert L. Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom, New York: Crossroad, 1987, p. 39.)"

-----

yup, seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Kagnew]

Why do people so badly want religions intertwined in government? WHY???

What will be your reaction when your religion is the minority?

Would you accept Islam being injected into the government? What about paganism or humanism?

Can we just leave well enough alone? I think their should be an absolute division between church and state.

Government is not your daddy, it is not your pastor, and it is not a good role model.

 

[Kagnew]

The OP stated the court got this decision "wrong." Since ~1802, the Supreme Court has had the final say in interpreting the Constitution. Their ruling may differ from our opinion, or even Jefferson's, but it cannot be "wrong." Perhaps a little research on Chief Justice John Marshall is in order?

How does "interpreting" the Constitution equate to "trump[ing]" anything the founding fathers said? Trumping would indicate over-ruling or re-writing. There's no way in Hell that the Supreme Court is supposed to be able to arbitrarily amend the Constitution. Perhaps a little research of the Constitution is in order?

 

[thebishopp]

"Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."
-Webster

If he was talking about the "pilgrims", if I recall it was a mix of fleeing from religious persecution as well as potential wealth that could be found in the "new land" (once it was "discovered").

If he is talking about our "founders". Several of our "founders" statements/writings/etc. openly and quite clearly contradict this statement.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

How does "interpreting" the Constitution equate to "trump[ing]" anything the founding fathers said? Trumping would indicate over-ruling or re-writing. There's no way in Hell that the Supreme Court is supposed to be able to arbitrarily amend the Constitution. Perhaps a little research of the Constitution is in order?

In which part does Kagnew reference the Supreme Court amending the Constitution? The Supreme Court has interpreted it in order to change its original meaning because some of the justices do not like the Constitution (see Ruth Bader Ginsburg).

 

[thebishopp]

The OP stated the court got this decision "wrong." Since ~1802, the Supreme Court has had the final say in interpreting the Constitution. Their ruling may differ from our opinion, or even Jefferson's, but it cannot be "wrong." Perhaps a little research on Chief Justice John Marshall is in order?

Yes, perhaps a little research is in order.

Jefferson - founder and President at the time.
Marshall - appointed supreme court judge nominated by Adams

"In his letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Thomas Jefferson argues against exclusive judiciary construction of the Constitution; such exclusive power of constitutional interpretation would, according to Jefferson, undermine the principle of checks and balances-since it would allow the judiciary department to prescribe rules for the government of the others.

If the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Jefferson instead recommends that each department be truly independent of the others and have the right to decide for itself the Constitution’s meaning in cases submitted to its action-especially in those cases where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."

------------

Seems to me Jefferson had it right when he said: "“is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”