"Separation of Church and State..."

[Roadie]

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?

</end thread>

 

[DragonGunner]

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.

Bingo. The problem with the ruling of Seperation of Church an State is that they (Supreme Court) deliberatly misused Jeffersons words to mean what they wanted. Instead of what Jefferson was talking about.

 

[jgreiner]

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.

And yet that is EXACTLY what this admin is doing by forcing the catholic church to provide items that go AGAINST established church doctrine. What next? They going to order priests get married? Outlaw nuns?

 

[fullmetaljesus]

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.....

Good luck getting away from religion around gun nuts. Typically gun nuts are bible thumpers who see jesus as

(not bashing, just stating an observation.)


Im off to go look at the 1911 pic thread

cheers,

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Could a case be made that secularism is actually the state's religion?

I'm just asking?

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Good luck getting away from religion around gun nuts. Typically gun nuts are bible thumpers who see jesus as

(not bashing, just stating an observation.)

Im off to go look at the 1911 pic thread

cheers,

Wait....that's not Jesus? Wow...who'd a thunk....

I'm off to get back to work!

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Could a case be made that secularism is actually the state's religion?

I'm just asking?

that's what the founding fathers wanted. Personally they were Atheist, deist, agnostic, and christian. But wanted the country to be secular.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

that's what the founding fathers wanted. Personally they were Atheist, deist, agnostic, and christian. But wanted the country to be secular.

The founding fathers may have wanted the country to be neutral I'll give you that, but...secular as we see it now is the most intolerant of the religion's out there. We can't speak about global warming because it's been 'decided.' We can't have nativity scenes because some are 'offended,' 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), we can't pray in schools, we can't.....

I think you see my point. You may not agree - and that's fine - but I hope you see my point.

 

[KLB]

And yet that is EXACTLY what this admin is doing by forcing the catholic church to provide items that go AGAINST established church doctrine. What next? They going to order priests get married? Outlaw nuns?

First they were not forcing the Church to do anything. It was institutions affiliated with churches.

Second, the issue should be that they are forcing any private entity to do provide anything in this area, not just a religiously affiliated one.

 

[Roadie]

that's what the founding fathers wanted. Personally they were Atheist, deist, agnostic, and christian. But wanted the country to be secular.

No, they didn't want the country RUN by one religion. It was obvious from their actions they had no problem with religion being part of Government.

• They proclaimed national days of Thanksgiving
• National Days of Fasting
• National Days of Prayer
• Held Church services in Government Buildings
• Had Bible studies/prayers services before/after meetings of Congress

Just to name a few examples.. They didnt FORCE anyone into these things, they didnt make LAWS forcing people into these things, but they endorsed/allowed them, and some participated in them.


May I suggest checking out the Library of Congress's online exhibit on this subject? Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Library of Congress Exhibition)

 

[KLB]

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?

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.

 

[Roadie]

that's what the founding fathers wanted. Personally they were Atheist, deist, agnostic, and christian. But wanted the country to be secular.

Also, as further proof that the Founders did not want a "Secular Nation" look up the history of the Seal of the United States.

Jefferson and Franklin both suggested different scenes from the Book of Exodus..

 

[edporch]

There is no part of the US Constitution that says there's a "separation of church and state".

The 1st Amendment says:
"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. "

The 1st Amendment religion part is to stop the Federal government from establishing an OFFICIAL religion of the United States.
So there would be no Church of England type thing here.

Curiously, there were states that DID have an official religion, and even had religious tests to hold public office.
They just didn't want the Federal government over ruling their official religion.

The reference to "separation between church and state" actually comes from a letter that Thomas Jeferson sent to the Danbury Baptists.

Here's the letter:
from Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent

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.

 

[rambone]

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.

 

[Roadie]

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.

Did you actually read any of the posts in this thread? I don't see anything about religion "intertwined" in Government being posted..

Allow me to refer you this this post:

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?

 

[fullmetaljesus]

The founding fathers may have wanted the country to be neutral I'll give you that, but...secular as we see it now is the most intolerant of the religion's out there. We can't speak about global warming because it's been 'decided.' We can't have nativity scenes because some are 'offended,' 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), we can't pray in schools, we can't.....

I think you see my point. You may not agree - and that's fine - but I hope you see my point.

"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.

 

[flightsimmer]

Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use of the phrase
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

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.[19]
​

 

[edporch]

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.

I don't see that anybody's saying they want religion "intertwined" with government.

Only that a person shouldn't be excluded from government BECAUSE they are religious.

EVEN the religious are required to follow the US Constitution.

 

[rambone]

I don't see that anybody's saying they want religion "intertwined" with government.

Only that a person shouldn't be excluded from government BECAUSE they are religious.

Thats the reason Herman Cain said he wouldn't hire muslims in his administration. Is that what we are trying to prevent?

 

[Roadie]

"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.

I noticed you ignored my posts. Care to take a gander at them, read the source I cited, the info I presented, and get back to me?

okthxbye