NationStates Jolt Archive

"The First Amendment...does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. ... Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. ... The state may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." --Justice William Douglas

I happen to agree with this, but I would like some serious discussion on the topic from the standpoint of this quotation, please. :)

"The First Amendment...does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. ... Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. ... The state may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." --Justice William Douglas

I happen to agree with this, but I would like some serious discussion on the topic from the standpoint of this quotation, please. :)
I'd agree. Prejudice against religion is just as bad as Christian legislation.
I think the forefathers told us this would be a difficult endeavor.

This indeed was the intent of the First Amendment -- that no one be forced to follow a state religion -- not that religion become a dirty word.

It was meant to avoid things like the Puritan theocracies in New England, where if one did not go to church, one could be jailed and would have no rights, not to stamp out religion in all public places.

I'd agree. Prejudice against religion is just as bad as Christian legislation.
I think the forefathers told us this would be a difficult endeavor.

During a break in the Constitutional Drafting meetings in Philadelphia, one woman asked Benjamin Franklin what sort of government the signers had created for the people. Franklin stated, "A republic, madam ... if you can keep it."

well eustrusca, if you want to play "lets cherry pick quotes that support my ideals and THEN interpret them so they support my ideals" i will gladly play your asinine game. and to boot, if you wanted serious discussion you would make a serious inquiry that is unbiased

"...Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and 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...." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists


having a government devoid of religion does not equate to a magical "religion of secularism" you have made up to try and get your way

A government presenting a distaste for or aversion to all religion would be establishing a religious viewpoint. As such, it would be wrong. And if I ever see one, I will be the first railing against it (ie. some of the things the French government has done). I have yet to see any true examples of this in the US.

well eustrusca, if you want to play "lets cherry pick quotes that support my ideals and THEN interpret them so they support my ideals" i will gladly play your asinine game. and to boot, if you wanted serious discussion you would make a serious inquiry that is unbiased

"...Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and 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...." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists


having a government devoid of religion does not equate to a magical "religion of secularism" you have made up to try and get your way

Holy Shit! :eek: Someone needs a Xanax bar.

well eustrusca, if you want to play "lets cherry pick quotes that support my ideals and THEN interpret them so they support my ideals" i will gladly play your asinine game. and to boot, if you wanted serious discussion you would make a serious inquiry that is unbiased.

Having a government devoid of religion does not equate to a magical "religion of secularism" you have made up to try and get your way

The quote was from Justice William Douglas, not me.

Were you born cynical, or did you have to work at it?

The quote was from Justice William Douglas, not me.

Were you born cynical, or did you have to work at it?
i practice, but you obviously sought the quote out

Is not mentioning god and not using government funds to exhibit religious art really the same as establishing a religion of secularism? I think not. I think the only way government can be impartial among all religions is to stay totally separated.

i practice, but you obviously sought the quote out

No, I got it in an email and then looked it up to make sure it was accurate, and posted it because I thought it could form the basis of a relatively interesting and flame-free thread. Obviously I was wrong. :headbang:

Please, R_2K3, calm down a bit. You seem to randomly pounce on Eutrusca with no forethought. Remember, flaming and baiting are against forum rules, and you seem like you're treading the thin line.
Stop for a moment, sit back and think.

Thank you.

Is not mentioning god and not using government funds to exhibit religious art really the same as establishing a religion of secularism? I think not. I think the only way government can be impartial among all religions is to stay totally separated.

Surprisingly enough, I tend to agree, but you do have to admit that it's often difficult in the extreme to draw the line between the two, yes? :)

Surprisingly enough, I tend to agree, but you do have to admit that it's often difficult in the extreme to draw the line between the two, yes? :)

It is often difficult to draw the line between anything. I have seen some lawsuits that I think border on crossing the line, but none that actually went through. More often than not, I see people trying to inject religion into law, rather than inject an aversion to it.

Surprisingly enough, I tend to agree, but you do have to admit that it's often difficult in the extreme to draw the line between the two, yes? :)
Sometimes it is, but the line must be drawn.

"The First Amendment...does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. ... Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. ... The state may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." --Justice William Douglas
If there is seperation in every aspect, there won't be any establishing of Christainity, or secularism, or Hinduism, or any other religion by the government. Seperation of church and state is just that- the government making no laws that establish a religion, and forbid a religion; the laws MUST have a secular purpose. Otherwise they get...biased. The dominant religion would jump on the chance to crush other religons, or maybe rights would be taken away because a religion says "people shouldn't so that". Pehaps women would be forced back into the home, not being able to pursue what they want to in life. Until you can find a religion that doesn't have any rules that would take away human rights, discriminate against a group(be it racial or otherwise), hinder the practice of other religions, hinder scientific progress, and various other things religon has historically be detrimental for, seperation of church and state must be as abolute as possible, for it is a nessicary safeguard to the rights of the people. Or do I need to point you to places such as various Islamic countries, medievil(sp?) Europe, the Bush administration(to a lesser degree), etc.?

^^^^^
Yeah that seems dead on.

"The First Amendment...does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. ... Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. ... The state may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." --Justice William Douglas

I happen to agree with this, but I would like some serious discussion on the topic from the standpoint of this quotation, please. :)

Is this the same guy?

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/posner-antihero.html

;)

Again I defer to the man that wrote the Constitution.

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Chruch from the State"
-- James Madison

"The First Amendment...does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. ... Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. ...
Strongly disagree with his interpretation there. I do believe it is exaclty what it says.

The state may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." --Justice William Douglas
I agree with this. So, although I agree with Justice Douglas conclusions, I find fault in his premice. Also, I believe that secularism can exist without being at war with religion just as many religions can co-exist in a society.

Separation of Church and State simply means that the state shall neither endorse nor create any particular religion. Thus, the government is allowed to reference God, so long as it does not implicitly or explicitly support a particular religion. That is all it means. It neither requires an absolute secularism with no reference to God, nor does it allow anything even approaching a theocracy. That's really all I've got.

Separation of Church and State simply means that the state shall neither endorse nor create any particular religion. Thus, the government is allowed to reference God, so long as it does not implicitly or explicitly support a particular religion. That is all it means. It neither requires an absolute secularism with no reference to God, nor does it allow anything even approaching a theocracy. That's really all I've got.

Well said! :)

It gets funny when it comes to pinning down just what a religion is. Back when the 1st Amendment was made, Protestantism was the dominant religious branch, with a smattering of Catholics, and that was it. Nowadays, Christianity has fallen in America to around 75% of the total population, leaving large areas for Eastern philosophies/religions, Islam, Wiccan, Scientology, Secular Humanism, Mormon, atheism, etc. Back then it was easy to just say "No Church in government, no government in church". Today, it is more difficult. Is referencing Buddha or Confucious an endorsement of religion? Is referencing L. Ron Hubbard an endorsement of religion? Should witches not be allowed at public Halloween parades (i.e., a public endorsement of Wiccan?) Can the government refer to a nameless deity?

With so much variety in just what constitutes a religion, it gets harder to draw the line between religion and government.

This is a crazy topic (not a bad choice, but goes all over). I'd just like to clear it up. First, a government that is actively anti-religion would be breaking separation of church and state. Second, the whole Thomas Jefferson letter thing is just about the only historical basis the whole separation of church and state thing has to go on, and it really has no significance as it was a private letter. Justifying Separation of Church and State by deifying the framers and the constitution is hypocritical anyway. Separation is much better justified by simple fact. The fact is that any religious group/ set of ideas will inherently serve democracy worse than a secular one (by secular I don't mean they promote secularism, I mean they don't argue about religion at all). This is true because religious groups always have a responsibility to a higher authority than the state. If God told the Red Cross to kill everyone seeking AIDS medications in Africa they'd do it.

First, a government that is actively anti-religion would be breaking separation of church and state. Second, the whole Thomas Jefferson letter thing is just about the only historical basis the whole separation of church and state thing has to go on, and it really has no significance as it was a private letter.


Actually it is very significant! If you simply fall back to the document then you leave it to interpretation and everybody has their own spin on it.

Their personal and public writings give insight to their thinking.

I once had a debate with a person who said Madison supported the seccession of states and yet produced references to him arguing his comments were misused and the fact he argued against it in his latter days....

People read the seperation comment and seem to think it means the goverment has to be athiest or something. It's about being Neutral towards Religion.

People read the seperation comment and seem to think it means the goverment has to be athiest or something. It's about being Neutral towards Religion.

Generally speaking, the easiest way to be neutral towards religion is to avoid discussion of it. Once one begins the discussion their individual opinions and prejudices come out, then those that disagree let their's out and it typically (though not always) spirals downward.

(Yes I know this is a slippery slope argument, I make no claims as to this being garunteed to happen, some people are more capable of the discourse than others. I just believe that it is a likely occurance and one to be avoided. Just because it has a logic fallacy doesn't mean it's incorrect, not everything works logically, least of all religion.)

I for one, do not care if someone says god (or whatever, take your pick) during a speech, or prays in public schools, or wears a burqha (sp?) during a senate hearing, or whatever. This, however, does not mean it's okay to have taxpayer money pay for a public display of the ten commandments. Nor does it mean it's okay for schools to force kids to say a pledge that includes the words "under G-d" (and were incidentally only added to the pledge by McCarthyists during the 50s) in it.