NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you support the separation of church and state?

And yes, I am trying to trap you. The support of this idea entails several things that easily simplify and decide several "hot topics" currently "debated" by politicians in the U.S.

If you aren't in the U.S., good on you. These "hot topics" are pretty much open and shut cases with the rest of the modern and progressive world (with the exception of fringe groups) and you have more important things to worry about (but I'd like to hear your opinions just the same.)

Also, it will be quite interesting to see the reasoning of the few people who select "no".

EDIT: The poll is about accepting 1st amendment rights of the religious and non religious alike as well as consequential case laws. It in no way means that there should be a religious litmus for government posts, nor does it mean that the government should take an anti-clerical stance. Then again, if you're voting for "no", you probably think they currently are anyways.



Some more guidelines

1. Just to remind people, the lack of a religion is not a religion. i.e. secularism, rationalism, atheism, agnosticism, zen buddhism, existentialism, nihilism, etc. are not religions, but philosophies. If it don't dictate morals, let alone follow a jello mold of preset standards, it aint a religion, and doesn't have a central party to favor.

2. The government's neutrality on religion can't be construed as favoring atheism. That's a non sequiter... i.e. by not selecting a specific religion, the government does not "favor" secularism or atheism.

3. If you're in doubt about whether the government is unfairly ruling against [Christian] religion, simply place yourself in the position of a Hindu, religious Buddhist, or other non Juedo-religious person. If you have the possibility of being legitimately offended, either by feeling left out, singled out, discriminated against, etc., then the government isn't doing anything wrong.

4. It's sad I should have to say this, but Judeo-religions didn't (and don't) precedent moral. Hammarabis Code is proof enough, though it can be argued that it was inherently necessary that for any prehistoric civilization to survive it create a set of laws. If Jesus is the only thing keeping you from going on a murderous rampage, I suggest you seek help immediately.

5. Do not feed the Arnburg troll. He is either an obnoxious fanatic, or a lousy and obstructive satirist. I promised I wouldn't allow anyone to hijack my thread, but it takes more than me to see this promise out.

Fine. I'll start. Because of the separation of church and state, every single infringement the current administration and its fellow social conservatives has made and attempted to make on civil liberties and civil rights is unconstitutional. They don't even try and make a legitimate argument, the best they can do is "Jesus this" and "Jesus that" which is completely unexceptable, especially for people who are supposed to be leaders of a democracy, not a theocracy, let alone an oligarchy, plutocracy, or kleptocracy.

Thence, the following are seemingly an all go, unless rational (and not religious) arguments surface:

Abortion, contraceptives, gay [marriage] rights, euthanasia, and those obnoxiously whiny yet fair complaints by people who don't like religious monuments.

And behold: God made beef jerky, and it was good.

I'm from one of the civilized countries, so I shouldn't really comment.

I guess I'll just have to wait for one or more of the fundies to swing by and prove you right. I bet you this thread will turn into a bible interpretation nightmare before long :rolleyes:

We have a winner! Congratulations Neo Rogolia on being the first of (hopefully no so) many people that the General public will ignore in any serious form of debate... although apparently that was your status already.

Still, I was perfectly willing to give you a fair chance, but now...
Yah. It's like that. It's gonna hurt. I'm sorry mate, but logic is ineffective on the likes of you. And there's no point on arguing democracy with someone who wants a theocracy.

I did a thread on this a few days ago, and this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8587678/) was the basis for it. You want a good reason as to why there's needs to be a mile-high impenetrable wall between the church and the state, this story tells you why.

For those who won't click on the link, here's the short version--if your church isn't the one that winds up melding with the state if that wall comes down, you're fucked. Read the story and see what I'm talking about.

I bet you this thread will turn into a bible interpretation nightmare before long :rolleyes:

Hell no. I'm too strong willed and vicious to let that happen to my thread. There will be no bible interpretation on this thread. Political debates about democratic countries stay secular.

Simple as that.

Disestablishmentarian.

We have a winner! Congratulations Neo Rogolia on being the first of (hopefully no so) many people that the General public will ignore in any serious form of debate... although apparently that was your status already.

Still, I was perfectly willing to give you a fair chance, but now...
Yah. It's like that. It's gonna hurt. I'm sorry mate, but logic is ineffective on the likes of you. And there's no point on arguing democracy with someone who wants a theocracy.WTF does Neo-R have anything to do with this thread?!

And behold: God made beef jerky, and it was good.

Quoted for truth. Drzhen wins, topic over.

No simply said I do not want my government determining what I should believe in

Or attempting to impose such

Though I am saddened by the number of Christians that are likely to select “yes” just because their religion is in the majority for now (though if world trends continue they wont be for too long)

WTF does Neo-R have anything to do with this thread?!

Apparently you aren't spiteful enough to deserve the title of "Sarcazm Master." Check the poll to see the people who would rather the U.S. (and probably the world) be a [Christian] theocracy.

EDIT: But of course, most astonishing are the secular people who don't believe in the distinction between church and state. I mean, nazi (referring to The Great Sixth Reich) or not, I don't see why someone secular would want that...but I doubt I'll get an (coherent) answer to that question.

Apparently you aren't spiteful enough to deserve the title of "Sarcazm Master." Check the poll to see the people who would rather the U.S. (and probably the world) be a [Christian] theocracy.Sorry, I'm kinda tired....it's 1:30 in the morning here... I should get to bed.... :(

It is a shame that America tries to be the Vatican. In a nation of scientific and technological might, an institution that is hungry for power, attempts to usurp the throne of logic.

If religions are truly spiritual, then perhaps they should adopt an apolitical stance instead of interfering in the affairs of bureaucrats and politicians.

Me? I'm a practicing Jew, and I have a much stronger stance on church and state than most atheists.

To me, religious institutions are inherently different from the state in that they're justified, in essence, solely by faith. "X is true because I believe it to be" is a logical religious argument, because all religion stems from a leap of faith. Either you feel religious or you don't.

The state, however, is based entirely on rational human analysis. What would be the best way to organize human society? The most common answer is a state. Why? To better humanity. Although people differ radically on what "better" means, they still all agree that it should be the end goal for any state (unless they view human existance as bad, in which case the state system doesn't concern them inasmuch as it allows for the best way to kill all the people). They debate this point using justification based in logic rather than faith. As a result, they can justify policies for reasons other than "I feel that way and feel that God does as well."

Therefore, any policy based on religion voids the rational function of the state. The state loses its ability to be a rational actor, and decisions such as "We should ban cars because I feel that way" become legitimate.

Further, the state should not impose beliefs on any individual unless a clear and logical reason can be provided for doing so. "I feel that way" isn't such a justification.

What's the conclusion to all of this? Anyone whose religious beliefs influence their political decisions should be disqualified from office. That's right, I'll say it again - if your religion at all makes political decisions, than you are not competent to run a nation. I realize how radical this view is, but I feel it's the only way to create a viable church-state separation. Otherwise, a state church is created in all but name when abortion and gay marriage are banned because they're an abomination against God.

That'd be a wonderful quote if it weren't for the misplaced comma. D'oh!
Actually, I don't think it means very much. Certainly it doesn't the way it's worded.

Actually, I don't think it means very much. Certainly it doesn't the way it's worded.Yeah, I agree.

Actually, I don't think it means very much. Certainly it doesn't the way it's worded.

Alright, I'll admit that. I guess I just like it because it reminds me of cheesy movie and comic book intros.

In any event, yes, your points are right, though not that revolutionary.

What's the conclusion to all of this? Anyone whose religious beliefs influence their political decisions should be disqualified from office. That's right, I'll say it again - if your religion at all makes political decisions, than you are not competent to run a nation. I realize how radical this view is, but I feel it's the only way to create a viable church-state separation. Otherwise, a state church is created in all but name when abortion and gay marriage are banned because they're an abomination against God.
Sorry, but this just deserved to be repeated. I'm thrilled I don't live in America, because that statement just made you more qualified to be president, than all the candidates since before Reagan.
I don't understand why you guys, as a people, aren't more organised & active. 2 virtually identical parties fronted by 2 virtually identical maniacs... What have you got to loose? The clown nose or something?

Me? I'm a practicing Jew, and I have a much stronger stance on church and state than most atheists.

To me, religious institutions are inherently different from the state in that they're justified, in essence, solely by faith. "X is true because I believe it to be" is a logical religious argument, because all religion stems from a leap of faith. Either you feel religious or you don't.

The state, however, is based entirely on rational human analysis. What would be the best way to organize human society? The most common answer is a state. Why? To better humanity. Although people differ radically on what "better" means, they still all agree that it should be the end goal for any state (unless they view human existance as bad, in which case the state system doesn't concern them inasmuch as it allows for the best way to kill all the people). They debate this point using justification based in logic rather than faith. As a result, they can justify policies for reasons other than "I feel that way and feel that God does as well."

Therefore, any policy based on religion voids the rational function of the state. The state loses its ability to be a rational actor, and decisions such as "We should ban cars because I feel that way" become legitimate.

Further, the state should not impose beliefs on any individual unless a clear and logical reason can be provided for doing so. "I feel that way" isn't such a justification.

What's the conclusion to all of this? Anyone whose religious beliefs influence their political decisions should be disqualified from office. That's right, I'll say it again - if your religion at all makes political decisions, than you are not competent to run a nation. I realize how radical this view is, but I feel it's the only way to create a viable church-state separation. Otherwise, a state church is created in all but name when abortion and gay marriage are banned because they're an abomination against God.

I want to kiss you :fluffle: :fluffle:

Seperation of church and state is the most misunderstood law there is.

Look at the name of it. It does not say seperation of religion and state.
Kings used to let the pope rule over them and one moron actually created his own religion. Some rulers also made the people worship them. That is what the rule is protecting us against.

If the people elect a leader who is religious it is because they wanted a leader who is religious but the church can not have a say in the government.

Ya, I know. I'm jealous, and callous, and whiny. And while I still get pretty pissed about undue amounts of praise for ideas that seem obvious to me (even when I'm getting the praise), I shouldn't have flown off the handle. Glad I made a good talking point until things picked up speed, though.

Seperation of church and state is the most misunderstood law there is.

"Church" is representative of religions. You can't have religious agendae in a democracy. Fin.

I want to kiss you :fluffle: :fluffle:Really? ^_^ He's a guy, you know...

Seperation of church and state is the most misunderstood law there is.

Look at the name of it. It does not say seperation of religion and state.
Kings used to let the pope rule over them and one moron actually created his own religion. Some rulers also made the people worship them. That is what the rule is protecting us against.

If the people elect a leader who is religious it is because they wanted a leader who is religious but the church can not have a say in the government.
That is the name given but the name is inaccurate ... look at the actual constitutional statement

“congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of”

No where does it say church

You may be the one misunderstanding

Separation of church of state is paramount to what America was founded for.
It is one of the most crucial points made by the Founding Fathers.
The whole idea is that no one religious group, have influence over the lawmaking process, so that one group is not making laws, based on their faith, that dictate policy to the rest of the people, who may have different religious beliefs.

Despite the insanity of the religious right, and yes...I mean exactly that...this country is not, and should never be, run by the Christian Faith, or any other faith.

If it was..Terry Schiavo would still be rotting in Florida, with no hope of ever being allowed to rest, until she died of natural cuases.

Why is that bad?

Maybe you heard the autopsy reports?
She had less functioning brain matter than most gerbils.

Even though the rightwing nut bags clamored for her tube to be re-inserted, and screamed at Florida Governor Jeb (Los hermanos de la diablo) Bush, to order the national Guard to supervise.....thankfully...the system worked the way it was supposed to..and the Federal Government could not interfere with an issue in the State Government's jurisdiction.

This time at least....

The moral?

Crazy Jesus Freaks should not be making laws that apply to everyone else.

Blah. This is why I always hate posts like that. It's not like that idea is new or innovative, and we (or at least I) all had and have formulated concepts such as that since our early teens. The one thing I despise most is the overreactions and lauding of someone for ideas that aren't in the slightest bit groundbreaking, because that never fails to make me jealous as fuck, and also reminds me how fickle people can be and how easily they can be impressed by someone in the off chance that their prose touch them in some manner that someone else's doesn't.
Who says groundbreaking is the only aspect that provokes my respect ... maybe it was just the clear statement of a similar feeling to my own while it may not be ground breaking it is stated similar to how I think therefore causes such a response from me because of the way it reflects my personal thoughts

But no of course you assumed that the only reason for my praize was because I thought it was origional :rolleyes:

Thanks for the support, The similized world and UpwardThrust!

Blah. This is why I always hate posts like that. It's not like that idea is new or innovative, and we (or at least I) all had and have formulated concepts such as that since our early teens.
So, in the off chance that someone may have written it before, we should never share our ideas? Yeah, that seems like a great way to conceive of academic work :rolleyes:

Further, I didn't see the reactions you criticize to your original post. If you were smart enough to come up with these ideas so long ago, why didn't you write them here, and why wasn't your post praised? Or do I detect some jealousy? No, couldn't be...

The one thing I despise most is the overreactions and lauding of someone for ideas that aren't in the slightest bit groundbreaking, because that never fails to make me jealous as fuck, and also reminds me how fickle people can be and how easily they can be impressed by someone in the off chance that their prose touch them in some manner that someone else's doesn't.
So everything I just said is basically proven true. You think that an independently conceived idea in your mind isn't original, and thus when it gets a positive response, doesn't deserve it. Let's see what this amounts too:
Einstein writes the Theory of Relativity. Wait, he says. Someone may have come up with it already. I may get praise I don't deserve. Einstein crumples it up, and throws it away. Repeat with every academic development.

Stop trying to justify your personal annoyance at not being complimented with pseudo-academic language. It demeans you and everyone involved.

Blah. This is why I always hate posts like that. It's not like that idea is new or innovative, and we (or at least I) all had and have formulated concepts such as that since our early teens. The one thing I despise most is the overreactions and lauding of someone for ideas that aren't in the slightest bit groundbreaking, because that never fails to make me jealous as fuck, and also reminds me how fickle people can be and how easily they can be impressed by someone in the off chance that their prose touch them in some manner that someone else's doesn't.
Hah! Alright, I believe this thread won't become bible school after all.

Too friggin' bad you didn't get quoted twice for your thoughts on the topic, but then, you didn't exactly give a firery speech, did you?

Still, being an honest, mean spirited bastard, is something I can relate to. Three cheers for bringing humour to page two. And just so you'll have something to brag about, here's me first ever :fluffle:

- Pray it's also the last.

Edit: Jesus F. Christ you lot bruise easily!

Someone earlier wondered why a secular person would vote "no" on separation of church and state. I didn't vote that way, but I'll present the case:

In the long run, the end of separation of church & state could be the best thing to happen to atheism since Ingersoll. Why? We're talking about *government* here. The people who brought us $500 wrenches and a toilet for the Space Shuttle that cost more than Burt Rutan's whole spaceship.

Under separation of church and state, a church has to have the voluntary assent of its members in order to keep the donations coming, and, for that matter, to exist at all. That means churches have to be at least somewhat good at what they do. If not, they'll lose audience to football on TV, or maybe even *golf*!

Furthermore, with separation of church and state, churches don't have the option of wielding the club of State to purge the True Faith of vile heretics. This means that instead of killing each other, Christian sects have to tolerate each other's existence, and maybe even *cooperate* sometimes. As a result, they get a synergy they wouldn't have otherwise.

And, without guns and prisons at their command, religious leaders have to sound peaceful and enlightened, preaching "God is love" instead of "For the LORD your God is a jealous God, his name is Jealous!" Which means, people in general get a much prettier picture of religion than they would if it were allowed to show its true colors. The same thing applies to secular would-be totalitarians who don't have the option of throwing people they don't like into the Camps because they failed to worship the god known as the "State."

So, in the U.S., where there is separation of church and state, religion flourishes, as it does nowhere else in the industrialized world. The United Kingdom, which has an official religion (the Church of England) also has a Bureau of Redundant Churches, a government agency created to figure out what to do with huge, empty, historical churches that no one goes to anymore!

So, what would happen if we abolished separation of church and state? Well, at first, the various churches would dive into the Treasury and start rolling around naked in the money, like "Reverend" Cartman did in that South Park episode. Freed from the challenges of the free market, they could be as incompetent as they liked, as long as their political connections were secure.

If people stopped coming to church, they'd force them, "for their own good," of course. Well, if people are forced to go to church, endure DMV-quality service and sermons, then they wouldn't enjoy it very much. They might even start considering the idea of *rebelling* against religion.

So, with "guaranteed" attendance and funding, churches would do the same thing every other government program does: get as many people on the payroll as possible, to create a voter-base for the program. The "call" to the ministry would no longer stem from any form of sincere belief, but from the dream of a well-paying job one can never lose, plus a goodly chunk of prestige and power.

But, even the government treasury is not infinite, despite trillions in deficit spending. We still have to pay for all those Stealth bombers and armadas of aircraft carriers--you know, so we can fight those guys with the donkeys, AK-47's, and hand grenades. Anyway, the ultimate finitude of taxpayer money means that the various religious groups, like pirahna in a small aquarium as the last scraps of the day's feeding are snapped up, begin eyeing each other.

Should the Southern Baptist Convention really sit by and let those vile, idol-worshipping Papists get a share of "their" tax dollars? Should the Holy Mother Church permit a gaggle of heresy-spouting "Protestant" rabble who don't even recognize the rightful authority of the Pontiff and the Magisterium of the Church to take tax money from the pockets of honest Catholics? God forbid!

And so, the infighting begins. If the Protestants win, then it's up to the Baptists to purge the True Faith of those wicked Lutherans, and vice versa. If the Catholics win, then it's the True Catholics who still celebrate the Mass in Latin, vs. the True Catholics who acknowlede Vatican II.

The inherent corruption of power and looted money will destroy the last bits of legitimacy religion has in short order. After all, consider how government intervention in the realm of charity has made the very idea of helping the poor into a Bad Thing. Don't believe me? Just say the word "welfare" and feel the connotations it has.

If government can do that to something as "motherhood-and-apple-pie" as helping the less fortunate, just *think* of what it can do for religion! Why, a few years without separation of church and state, and America will be just as secular as Europe! :D

Apparently you aren't spiteful enough to deserve the title of "Sarcazm Master." Check the poll to see the people who would rather the U.S. (and probably the world) be a [Christian] theocracy.

EDIT: But of course, most astonishing are the secular people who don't believe in the distinction between church and state. I mean, nazi (referring to The Great Sixth Reich) or not, I don't see why someone secular would want that...but I doubt I'll get an (coherent) answer to that question.

1. On the issue of secular people wanted no seperation: It is because, lacking seperation; it is possible for a secular government to abolish religion. A Stalinist, would be secular, and wish for no seperation, for such ends...

2. I happen to be religious; and am firm on the issue of seperation of church and state being necessary. As much for everyone elses free practice of religious belief; as my own...

Apparently you aren't spiteful enough to deserve the title of "Sarcazm Master." Check the poll to see the people who would rather the U.S. (and probably the world) be a [Christian] theocracy.

EDIT: But of course, most astonishing are the secular people who don't believe in the distinction between church and state. I mean, nazi (referring to The Great Sixth Reich) or not, I don't see why someone secular would want that...but I doubt I'll get an (coherent) answer to that question.

1. On the issue of secular people wanted no seperation: It is because, lacking seperation; it is possible for a secular government to abolish religion. A Stalinist, would be secular, and wish for no seperation, for such ends...

2. I happen to be religious; and am firm on the issue of seperation of church and state being necessary. As much for everyone elses free practice of religious belief; as my own...

Apparently you aren't spiteful enough to deserve the title of "Sarcazm Master." Check the poll to see the people who would rather the U.S. (and probably the world) be a [Christian] theocracy.

EDIT: But of course, most astonishing are the secular people who don't believe in the distinction between church and state. I mean, nazi (referring to The Great Sixth Reich) or not, I don't see why someone secular would want that...but I doubt I'll get an (coherent) answer to that question.

1. On the issue of secular people wanted no seperation: It is because, lacking seperation; it is possible for a secular government to abolish religion. A Stalinist, would be secular, and wish for no seperation, for such ends...

2. I happen to be religious; and am firm on the issue of seperation of church and state being necessary. As much for everyone elses free practice of religious belief; as my own...

1. On the issue of secular people wanted no seperation: It is because, lacking seperation; it is possible for a secular government to abolish religion. A Stalinist, would be secular, and wish for no seperation, for such ends...

2. I happen to be religious; and am firm on the issue of seperation of church and state being necessary. As much for everyone elses free practice of religious belief; as my own...
Ok not sure if you meant this … but for point number 1 are you claiming that secularists only vote for the separation so that we can then abolish religion our country as a whole?

Ok not sure if you meant this … but for point number 1 are you claiming that secularists only vote for the separation so that we can then abolish religion our country as a whole?
No, he's saying that in theory if there is no separation secularists can destroy religion. By establishing separation, religion is protected from the state.

No, he's saying that in theory if there is no separation secularists can destroy religion. By establishing separation, religion is protected from the state.
Ok cool that’s why I asked instead on going on a fiery rant about how dare he accuse all of us of such a thing :)

As a secularist, my argument against the union of Church and State is what Afghanistan was like. Or what Iran is like. Or what Great Britain was like during Cromwell's reign. Actually, I'd really like someone to give some examples of a theocracy that hasn't screwed up.

Yes, it should be separate. Having said that, limiting somebody’s rights because they are religious (not allowing them to run for office) is no different than any other form of discrimination and is a view only a bigot could hold.

"Church" is representative of religions. You can't have religious agendae in a democracy. Fin.

Good thing I live in a representative republic then.

"No religious tests for office" is face value; and cuts both ways.... No one can be affirmed, or denied placement in office; merely because of their religious beliefs.

So, in essence; that is cwrong. Saying holding particular religious views disqualifies someone for office; is a bigoted view; as much as a christian saying an "atheist" is disqualified for office.

The burden of seperation is on the state; not the religious institutions... The state may neither dictate religion upon the instututions; nor may it enforce religious descipline for the institutions...

The First Amendment imposes upon the government; not upon the people, or the religious institutions...

The Second Amendment imposes upon the government; not upon the people, or the religious institutions...

Hoping you edit that to First.

Edit: Unless I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Hoping you edit that to First.

Edit: Unless I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Opps...

I grew up in Sweden but now I live in Denmark.
Sweden is secular while Denmark has (still) not separated church and state.
Frankly I can't tell the difference except that in Sweden I have to tick a box on the tax report if I care to pay support to the church.

I guess a secular state respecting the freedom of religion and a unseparated state with a symbolic religous touch can work out just as fine. While a secular state medling religion into everything and a religous state medling religion into everything would be just as bad :)

There is no such thing as seperation of Church and State, its a misused notion promoted from a Jefferson letter, in which he stated the union essentually creates a seperation of Church and State.

The Constitution says, for those who have not read it and claim to have read it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Simply means, the law is restricted from imposing its will upon the Church, it does not mean the Church is prohibited from imposing its will upon the Law.

Here is how it works. Only Congress can write law, not the Judges (as some believe) nor can a Church write law. So lets assume a Church gets a leader into power... and it wants to promote its view as the correct view of Religion... how can they do this without writing law against other views? It can't be done.... Thus be a person religious or not has zero bearing on how laws are written. Thus a wall of seperation exists to protect religion from Government... NOT to protect Government from Religion. It is a one way wall... and only needs to be defended from one side.. protect Religion from Government and freedom of religion exists.

These people who want to protect Government from Religion are trying to make law "AGAINST" religion... which is a dirict violation of the Constitution. They use the Courts... (which is another violation of the Constitution) to try and write law. This movement is in itself a religion, just not based on God. This movement is trying to impose law against religion to establish their views as the dominating view... which is another dirict violation of the Constitution.

The Wall of seperation is being violated in exactly the manner that the First Amendment is trying to protect. The Government is not allowed to make law against religion, period... and because the Church can't make law... it has the same avenue as everyone else. Beings how you can't write a law "FOR" a religion without it being "AGAINST" another religion... both have the same meaning.

I'm an Atheist and I don't mind people with a religion getting into government.

People who get into government because of religion is plain wrong.

For example, I've heard that in the UK (where I live), in the House of Lords there are ~26 seats reserved for Church of England Bishops. No reason for them getting in, apart from their religion. Yet the government claims we're multicultural. So why aren't there seats reserved fo Rabbis? Or Buddhist monks?

Although I'm not to sure if this is correct. Could anyone confirm or deny this?

There is no such thing as seperation of Church and State, its a misused notion promoted from a Jefferson letter, in which he stated the union essentually creates a seperation of Church and State.

The Constitution says, for those who have not read it and claim to have read it.


Simply means, the law is restricted from imposing its will upon the Church, it does not mean the Church is prohibited from imposing its will upon the Law.

You're right, it isn't. What it does forbid is the government from taking actions, such as school prayer, that specifically endorse a religion, promote the entanglement of religion and government, or lack a clear, secular, purpose. It's called case law. Read it some time.

Here is how it works. Only Congress can write law, not the Judges (as some believe) nor can a Church write law. So lets assume a Church gets a leader into power... and it wants to promote its view as the correct view of Religion... how can they do this without writing law against other views? It can't be done.... Thus be a person religious or not has zero bearing on how laws are written. Thus a wall of seperation exists to protect religion from Government... NOT to protect Government from Religion. It is a one way wall... and only needs to be defended from one side.. protect Religion from Government and freedom of religion exists.

Yes...

These people who want to protect Government from Religion are trying to make law "AGAINST" religion...
Your argument begins to fall apart here. By extention, all actions that forbid endorsement (such as forbidding denominational prayer) are protecting the government against religion, or rather prevent the government from infringing upon people's right to worship/live freely. What the government can not do is endorse one single religion, which is where the barrier of church and state comes from.
which is a dirict violation of the Constitution.
How on earth is this a violation of the Constitution? Mind citing some instances where this is the case
They use the Courts... (which is another violation of the Constitution) to try and write law.
Hollow rhetoric. You must try harder. Judges do not write law, they mearly interprit it, and when congressional actions/laws violate the constitution, they mandate them changed. It isn't writing law, it's doing what they are supposed to do.

This movement is in itself a religion, just not based on God. This movement is trying to impose law against religion to establish their views as the dominating view... which is another dirict violation of the Constitution.

The government should have no religion, and more to the point, the absence of religion is not atheism. Straw man ahoy!

The Wall of seperation is being violated in exactly the manner that the First Amendment is trying to protect. The Government is not allowed to make law against religion, period...
Why no, no it isn't. It also isn't able to endorse any religion through its actions. The courts have held over the years (and many different courts) that laws mustn't cause an excessive entanglement between church and state, have a clear secular purpose, and endorses one or more religions.
and because the Church can't make law... it has the same avenue as everyone else. Beings how you can't write a law "FOR" a religion without it being "AGAINST" another religion... both have the same meaning.
Laws aren't a zero sum game. Another straw man, as you can not endorse a religion, but that doesn't mean that you endorse its counterpart. Simply refusing to allow funding to religous organizations or not endorsing one version of the ten commandments isn't endorsing, say, buddhism.

There is no such thing as seperation of Church and State, its a misused notion promoted from a Jefferson letter, in which he stated the union essentually creates a seperation of Church and State. Beep! Wrong answer. There is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. That = separation of church and state. Next!


Simply means, the law is restricted from imposing its will upon the Church, it does not mean the Church is prohibited from imposing its will upon the Law. How can the Church impose its will upon the Law, except by getting into Congress? That counts as making a law respecting an establishment of religion. At least, the last time I checked the church was an establishment of religion....I could be wrong, you know....


Here is how it works. Only Congress can write law, not the Judges (as some believe) nor can a Church write law. So lets assume a Church gets a leader into power... and it wants to promote its view as the correct view of Religion... how can they do this without writing law against other views? It can't be done.... Thus be a person religious or not has zero bearing on how laws are written. Thus a wall of seperation exists to protect religion from Government... NOT to protect Government from Religion. It is a one way wall... and only needs to be defended from one side.. protect Religion from Government and freedom of religion exists.But unless we protect government from religion, wouldn't religion be able to get into power? Thus it would make laws respecting an establishment of religion, which is against the Constitution? Or "preventing the free exercise thereof", which would also be against the Constitution? The Church isn't the only establishment of religion, you know.


These people who want to protect Government from Religion are trying to make law "AGAINST" religion... which is a dirict violation of the Constitution. They use the Courts... (which is another violation of the Constitution) to try and write law. This movement is in itself a religion, just not based on God. This movement is trying to impose law against religion to establish their views as the dominating view... which is another dirict violation of the Constitution. That's all fine and dandy, except that there are people called atheists, and they have rights too. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It's all in the Constitution, in that little bit you quoted. Take another look.


The Wall of seperation is being violated in exactly the manner that the First Amendment is trying to protect. The Government is not allowed to make law against religion, period... and because the Church can't make law... it has the same avenue as everyone else. Beings how you can't write a law "FOR" a religion without it being "AGAINST" another religion... both have the same meaning.That doesn't make any sense. Explain please? Here it's early in the morning and I'm still tired.

You're right, it isn't. What it does forbid is the government from taking actions, such as school prayer, that specifically endorse a religion, promote the entanglement of religion and government, or lack a clear, secular, purpose. It's called case law. Read it some time. Not possible without making law against religion. Simply put, the government can not prohibit prayer in school...NOR can it force prayer in School. Thus the School is part of the Government. You seem to think the school can prohibit prayer..or that its a violation to pray in school. Also, your error is in Case Law. You seem to think that Case Law over rides the Constitution... its a common error in the legal industry.. I say error... because each judgement compounds error upon error... until it no longer has any relationship to the Constitution.. My advice... try reading the Constitution... weight your judgment against the Constitution.


Your argument begins to fall apart here. By extention, all actions that forbid endorsement (such as forbidding denominational prayer) are protecting the government against religion, or rather prevent the government from infringing upon people's right to worship/live freely. What the government can not do is endorse one single religion, which is where the barrier of church and state comes from. Actually the people within the Government can endorse a religion, they simply can not making a LAW to enforce a religion. Thus if the community wishes to endorse, promote, recognize... so long as it does not become Law... there is no violation. Stop reading more than is written in the Constitution. In fact... thats why the 10 commandments are on the SCOTUS building. Further, that is why the Bible was used in Court to swear upon. It was not until the 60's that this started to change. So by your logic,the courts were in violation of the Constitution from day one.



Hollow rhetoric. You must try harder. Judges do not write law, they mearly interprit it, and when congressional actions/laws violate the constitution, they mandate them changed. It isn't writing law, it's doing what they are supposed to do. Wrong, read what you wrote. The Judge is to interprit the law in the manner it was written. BIG DIFFERNCE. Omission or error?

Thus marriage as a right in Loving vs Virgina was written as between a man and a women... beings how sodomy laws of the time prevented it from being between two men or two women. The ruling as it was written needed not address someone trying to redifine the word marriage. Thus does not apply to Gay marriage. ... you see... as it was written what is important... not how you want to interprite it.




The government should have no religion, and more to the point, the absence of religion is not atheism. Straw man ahoy! Strawman is when you don't have a point. Which you have none.

Why no, no it isn't. It also isn't able to endorse any religion through its actions. The courts have held over the years (and many different courts) that laws mustn't cause an excessive entanglement between church and state, have a clear secular purpose, and endorses one or more religions. Once again, you prove my point about Courts, Case law and Judges. You dare not weight it against the Constitution... because you will lose... you can only weight it against Case law and previous errors of the Courts.

Look, I am not a religious person... I don't go to church and even I understand what is happening here. The Courts are not God... they are not elected, and they don't get to interprete the law. That is the same as making law.

Laws aren't a zero sum game. Another straw man, as you can not endorse a religion, but that doesn't mean that you endorse its counterpart. Simply refusing to allow funding to religous organizations or not endorsing one version of the ten commandments isn't endorsing, say, buddhism. Funny choice of words.. endorse does not mean to fund. The rest makes little sense.. please clarify.

Beep! Wrong answer. There is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. That = separation of church and state. Next! Freedom from religion means there can be no relgion in Government.
Freedom of Religion means each person is free to believe how they choose.
My answer is correct... we have freedom of religion.


How can the Church impose its will upon the Law, except by getting into Congress? That counts as making a law respecting an establishment of religion. At least, the last time I checked the church was an establishment of religion....I could be wrong, you know.... Think about what your saying and follow it through.
If I believe that Jesus is Lord and I get into Congress... what law could I possible pass that would promote my religion that would not prohibit the Jewish religion? You are free to try and write any law you wish... but can you pass the litmus of the first amendment? I think not.


But unless we protect government from religion, wouldn't religion be able to get into power? Thus it would make laws respecting an establishment of religion, which is against the Constitution? Or "preventing the free exercise thereof", which would also be against the Constitution? The Church isn't the only establishment of religion, you know. Once again, the Government makes law.. A church can not... until you can show how a law can be written to promote one religion without violating the rights of another... you have no argument. In Europe... Churches ruled through "LAW" which violatated every religion other than the one in power.

That's all fine and dandy, except that there are people called atheists, and they have rights too. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It's all in the Constitution, in that little bit you quoted. Take another look. Sorry freedom from relgion is not in the Constitution. That would be the effect by because freedom of religion exists... freedom of religion is the cause.

I will explaine,

In Europe, they made law attacking other religions... thus only one religion was legal. The attack can only come from the Government. Beings how a Church can't make law, unless it sets itself up as a Government... and beings how the Constitution protects all religions... no Church can attack another Church... thus no law can be written in such a manner, thus no attack can exist..

However... its false to think athieism is not a religion in itself. Religion is a belief system for man... what every you believe in matters not. Believing in randomness is still believing. Though the common understanding of Religion is God or some greater form.. Druids are a religion... Mythologies are a Religion. It really matters little... you are free to believe in toilet paper as being the all knowing creater if you wish. So you could be elected into Congress... but so long as you are prohibitied in making law against other religions... its a virtual impossibility to make law for YOUR religion.

*blabber about bigotry*
You both clearly misunderstand what I wrote. A religious person is not disqualified from holding office because they're religious; rather, they're disqualified because their personal belief influences their political ones. There's a distinct difference. If a fundamentalist has justifications for his or her views besides religion, they're good to go. But it's wrong for someone who says the state should do something because Jesus says so to impose their religion on someone else. So take your hollow charges of bigotry somewhere else, and preferably direct them against an actual position rather than a contrived strawman.

Not possible without making law against religion. Simply put, the government can not prohibit prayer in school...NOR can it force prayer in School. Thus the School is part of the Government. You seem to think the school can prohibit prayer..or that its a violation to pray in school. Also, your error is in Case Law. You seem to think that Case Law over rides the Constitution... its a common error in the legal industry.. I say error... because each judgement compounds error upon error... until it no longer has any relationship to the Constitution.. My advice... try reading the Constitution... weight your judgment against the Constitution.

Except that by having prayer in school (of course, teacher led. Students can pray all they want) you are forcing prayer in school (government agent endorsing a religion). Hense why it is illegal.
Case law is the interpritation of the Constitution. It is the constitution, rather, until it get overturned by the highest court. The constitution, as it stands, isn't a very useful document for legal matters at the core, for example there are tons of tiny little pieces of constitutional law that is helpfully not clarified in the constitution (for example, if "well regulated milita" means that the milita is regulated highly (eg, guns registered, etc) or that the milita simply isn't a bunch of gangsters.
Actually the people within the Government can endorse a religion, they simply can not making a LAW to enforce a religion. Thus if the community wishes to endorse, promote, recognize... so long as it does not become Law... there is no violation.
Correct, though not on public land (as if someone puts a ten commandment plaque in a courtroom outside of the proper context, if the government does not remove it, it is commiting an act of endorsement, and hense through inaction violating the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Stop reading more than is written in the Constitution. In fact... thats why the 10 commandments are on the SCOTUS building.
Actually it isn't the 10 commandments, it's the bill of rights. I-X.

Further, that is why the Bible was used in Court to swear upon. It was not until the 60's that this started to change. So by your logic,the courts were in violation of the Constitution from day one.

You can choose whatever you want to swear on. The swearing is the more important part.



Wrong, read what you wrote. The Judge is to interprit the law in the manner it was written. BIG DIFFERNCE. Omission or error?

Originalist, are you? Dead hand of the past...

However, generally, it is. The problem is when the manner in which it was written is in question. This happens often.

Thus marriage as a right in Loving vs Virgina was written as between a man and a women
Funny you mention loving. As the statue in that case was written, it was established that marriage was between a white man and a white woman. By your own arguments, Loving wasn't a proper case, and we should go back to a segrigated society.

To quote:
"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment."

... beings how sodomy laws of the time prevented it from being between two men or two women. The ruling as it was written needed not address someone trying to redifine the word marriage. Thus does not apply to Gay marriage. ... you see... as it was written what is important... not how you want to interprite it.

Loving wasn't about sodomy. It was about interracial marriage. You're shooting yourself in the foot.

Strawman is when you don't have a point. Which you have none.

Pardon? You're the one claiming that enforcing a separation between religion and the government is tantamount to endorsing atheism. No one is forcing gigantic monuments to be built saying "there is no god", which would be built if what you claimed was correct.

Once again, you prove my point about Courts, Case law and Judges. You dare not weight it against the Constitution... because you will lose... you can only weight it against Case law and previous errors of the Courts.

The only court that should use the Constitution in its cases is the Supreme court, for obvious reasons (can't have judical anarchy). All case law stems from the Constitution. You're creating a distinction that does not exist.

Look, I am not a religious person... I don't go to church and even I understand what is happening here. The Courts are not God... they are not elected, and they don't get to interprete the law. That is the same as making law.

Yes, they do. By definition, courts have to apply the statutes of the nation towards an end. They are the enforcement end of the legislative branch, if you will.

Funny choice of words.. endorse does not mean to fund. The rest makes little sense.. please clarify.
I'm using an example. Funding religious exercise is tantamount to endorsement.

You claim that by refusing to endorse one religion, you're endorsing another. This is a logically fallicy.

Don't get me wrong, I am not prejudice against anyone for who they are or what they believe. Has anyone paid attention to the extreamists all over the news who are killing themselves in the name of their religion? Who is to say that if our government were to impose beliefs onto it's citizens or use religion as a means to make decions that we would not become just as radical as those countries founded on religion, where people have no civil liberties and women are treated worse than the family pet? This country may have been founded on some basic christian beliefs, but times have changed. The government is there to protect and support it's citizens, and make sure that they have the proper tools to live safely, and be successful, and healthy. The government is not there to ram a religious stick up Joe's ass when he decides he wants to marry the man that he loves.

Don't get me wrong, I am not prejudice against anyone for who they are or what they believe. Has anyone paid attention to the extreamists all over the news who are killing themselves in the name of their religion? Who is to say that if our government were to impose beliefs onto it's citizens or use religion as a means to make decions that we would not become just as radical as those countries founded on religion, where people have no civil liberties and women are treated worse than the family pet? This country may have been founded on some basic christian beliefs, but times have changed. The government is there to protect and support it's citizens, and make sure that they have the proper tools to live safely, and be successful, and healthy. The government is not there to ram a religious stick up Joe's ass when he decides he wants to marry the man that he loves.




*we ban gay marriage* KERBLAM!!! EXPLOSIONS EVERYWHERE!!! PEOPLE BLOWING THEMSELVES UP FOR ALLAH!!!!! WOMEN SPAT UPON AND RAPED EVERY FEW MINUTES!!!! ANARCHY!!! CHAOS!!!!! THE HORROR!!!!!

I'm from the U.S. and might be better described as "spiritual" than "religious" (but that choice didn't exist). I strongly believe in separation of church and state - at least for my country. I was not born into a theocracy and do not wish to live in one.

Sorry freedom from relgion is not in the Constitution. That would be the effect by because freedom of religion exists... freedom of religion is the cause.
Congress shall not make a law respecting an establishment of religion...
That's freedom from religion: the freedom not to be forced to pray in school, the freedom not to be forced to follow a state religion, the freedom to not have to learn about creationism in schools or have God inflicted on you by politicians. That's a violation of my rights as an atheist. I don't want to have to hear about God in all these political campaign speeches or learn that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" in schools ((anyway, a theory is a hypothesis proved so many times it becomes accepted as a fact)). I don't want things like abortion and gay marriage to be prohibited just because there is no freedom from religion. Without freedom from religion, there can be no separation of church and state. There has to be freedom of religion and freedom from religion, otherwise there is no separation. It doesn't matter whether one is enforced or the other. You have to have both.

Let's try this one last time, before CT runs in and settles this for good:

Case law is merely other cases made before, that were taken from the Constitution unlike some people claim, and that have either not been overturned by a higher court or come from the highest court itself. It's merely an easier way of citing standard ideas of law then restating the same legal arguments over and over again.

First amendment constitutional law hinges mainly on one 'test', which although tweaked over the years since it was created, has at its core remained stable. The test is the Lemon test, so named after the case in which it was coined, Lemon v. Kurtzman.

The Lemon test consists of three parts, and if a law lacks any of the three parts, then it is unconstitutional under the US constitution (and in case you claim liberal judges- the court was unanimous in its decision in this case). These parts are:
The statute must have a secular legislative purpose

Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion

The statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Now, since you seem to be so big on the original document, let's examine the reasoning behind each of the three parts.

First, the statue must have a secular legislative purpose. This has its roots back in the granddaddy of current first amendment law interpretation, Abrington School District v. Schempp, and even further back in Minor v. Board of Education of Cincinnati, almost 100 years prior, in which Taft stated: "absolute equality before the law, of all religious opinions and sects...The government is neutral, and, while protecting all, it prefers none, and it disparages none." The requirement for a secular purpose is a buffer, protecting against infringements of the first amendment that the government has no right making.

Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, or "The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Everson v. Board of Education, supra; McGowan v. Maryland, supra, at 442. The Free Exercise Clause, likewise considered many times here, withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise [374 U.S. 203, 223] of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions thereof by civil authority. Hence it is necessary in a free exercise case for one to show the coercive effect of the enactment as it operates against him in the practice of his religion. The distinction between the two clauses is apparent - a violation of the Free Exercise Clause is predicated on coercion while the Establishment Clause violation need not be so attended."
This part of the test is the most clearly derived from the first amendment, which states "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."

Respecting the establishment of religion is an endorsement of religion ("Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." And Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting, agreed:

"There is no answer to the proposition . . . that the effect of the religious freedom Amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or indirectly be made public business and thereby be supported in whole or in part at taxpayers' expense. . . . This freedom was first in the Bill of Rights because it was first in the forefathers' minds; it was set forth in absolute terms, and its strength is its rigidity." Id., at 26. [374 U.S. 203, 217]

Further, Mr. Justice Rutledge, joined by Justices Frankfurter, Jackson and Burton, declared:

"The [First] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." Id., at 31-32."), or merely the support of a religion for purely religious reasons.

The last test, that the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.", can again be read from the first amendment in that the government is clearly ordered not to infringe on people's rights to worship freely, and a church/state government would, by its very nature, infringe on the rights of people to worship freely.


To quote Schempp again and to answer your question: 'It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a "religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of course that 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." Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 314. We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect. In addition, it might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. But the exercises here do not fall into those categories. They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing religion.

Finally, we cannot accept that the concept of neutrality, which does not permit a State to require a religious exercise even with the consent of the majority of those [374 U.S. 203, 226] affected, collides with the majority's right to free exercise of religion. 10 While the Free Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state action to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone, it has never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs. Such a contention was effectively answered by Mr. Justice Jackson for the Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943):

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to . . . freedom of worship . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."'

*we ban gay marriage* KERBLAM!!! EXPLOSIONS EVERYWHERE!!! PEOPLE BLOWING THEMSELVES UP FOR ALLAH!!!!! WOMEN SPAT UPON AND RAPED EVERY FEW MINUTES!!!! ANARCHY!!! CHAOS!!!!! THE HORROR!!!!!Yay! That sounds like fun! ;)


Come off it...gay marriage is in no way legal in the US at the moment, and how much of that is happening?

Ok, the women raped part...Every 6 minutes, a woman is raped worldwide. But that just shows you how screwed up your planet is. (pun intended :p)

Yay! That sounds like fun! ;)


Come off it...gay marriage is in no way legal in the US at the moment, and how much of that is happening?

Ok, the women raped part...Every 6 minutes, a woman is raped worldwide. But that just shows you how screwed up your planet is. (pun intended :p)
It is in Massachusetts.

It is in Massachusetts.Yeah...but since when is Massachusetts important? :p

I'm christian, catholic. i think there should be separation between church and state, i wouldn't want to impose my religion on anyone, its something you have to choose (or choose not to have). likewise, i wouldn't want someone else's religion forced on me.

Morals which are based more on religion (homosexuality, contraception) than being integral to society and humanity (murder, theft) shouldn't be enforced on others. They shouldn't even be forced on christians, we have the choice to accept them or not, and we believe we'll be judged by how we act.

So whilst I'm catholic, i'd support a government in introducing gay marriages etc. The one point where i would cause contention if i were an otherwise secular politician is abortion, where my personal view matches that of religion, and that in a live vs someone elses choice life comes first. I've stated my position on this in another thread. Now i don't see this as being a religion influenced thing, its like someone having a position for or against guns, its just this is an issue which is closely associated with religion.

Not getting into the abortion argument (if its still around see the abortion thread for my PoV), would my view here violate the barrier between church and state? If so, would it if i were an athiest rather than a christian?

You both clearly misunderstand what I wrote. A religious person is not disqualified from holding office because they're religious; rather, they're disqualified because their personal belief influences their political ones. There's a distinct difference. If a fundamentalist has justifications for his or her views besides religion, they're good to go. But it's wrong for someone who says the state should do something because Jesus says so to impose their religion on someone else. So take your hollow charges of bigotry somewhere else, and preferably direct them against an actual position rather than a contrived strawman.

I didn't misunderstand anything.....

There is NO RELIGIOUS QUALIFICATIONS PERIOD... Inclusive or exclusive.

There is no authority to disqualify based upon your rhetoric...

It's bigotry.... It does not matter WHAT they believe. It does not disqualify them.... The people determine by vote; the candidates qualification... Not your prejudicial claims. I could care less if they wanted to force religion upon the masses; the voters qualify them; and the constitution prevents actions they may try, which overstep their authority; of going that far... However; they are still rightly qualified for their office....

Whether they are fundamentalist, baptist, presbyterian, buddhist, etc.... Whether they like Seperation, or dislike; none of that is determinative to their qualifications of holding office.... The only qualifications are that of their citizenship, their age; and if they are rightly elected.

That's freedom from religion: the freedom not to be forced to pray in school, the freedom not to be forced to follow a state religion, the freedom to not have to learn about creationism in schools or have God inflicted on you by politicians. That's a violation of my rights as an atheist.

first bit agreed, as long as you add in freedom to worship in school (but privately as an individual, rather than as a class activity, unless a CU club starts up, in which case those people who freely joined it could pray togther, in their own time, say during break times).

As for creationism, i don't believe in it (it would be quite difficult to cope on the bio course here at ox if i did, they love evolution), but i don't see what's wrong with it being on the sylabus as long as hindu, sihk (sp?) etc creation stories are also taught, along with evolution. Certainly, the actual origin of life is still unknown to science and there's room to believe that God started it if you want to, although in the literal biblical sense is not supported by science. The only problem i could forsee with creationism being taught as i suggest it is that some people wouldn't teach it in the way that i would, and could try to teach it as the only real creation theory, but that would be an abuse of power, particularly in a secular school.


learn that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" in schools ((anyway, a theory is a hypothesis proved so many times it becomes accepted as a fact)). I don't want things like abortion and gay marriage to be prohibited just because there is no freedom from religion. Without freedom from religion, there can be no separation of church and state. There has to be freedom of religion and freedom from religion, otherwise there is no separation. It doesn't matter whether one is enforced or the other. You have to have both.

Evolution is as close to fact as we can get, where a fact is something we hold to be the truth after trying to disprove it and failing until we succeed.

I'm an Atheist and I don't mind people with a religion getting into government.

People who get into government because of religion is plain wrong.

For example, I've heard that in the UK (where I live), in the House of Lords there are ~26 seats reserved for Church of England Bishops. No reason for them getting in, apart from their religion. Yet the government claims we're multicultural. So why aren't there seats reserved fo Rabbis? Or Buddhist monks?

Although I'm not to sure if this is correct. Could anyone confirm or deny this?

yeah, unfortunately we d have those seats reserved. not sure if it is 26 seats though, it might be less. still, we should have representatives from each faith and each lack of faith organisation (eg national secular society, whatever the humanist organisations are, and so on) if we are going to have any. and if we did that, the HoL would be massive, and we would be entrusting an big bit of government power to people who beleive in faeries for the simple fact they believe in faeries... a frightening thought. :eek:

For the special people who voted "No", what right do you think you have to advocate for a government in which your religion is highest, and where everyone has to obey your religious laws?

Stop being so fucking ignorant.

Imagine if we agnosticists and atheists decided to outlaw religion entirely because it makes no scientific sense. I doubt the Bible-slammers and other fundamentalists would like that. People have intellectual rights. They have the right to live in a place ruled by laws free from religious interpretation. And that's why you people are called morons and idiots, because sometimes people's sanity comes into question.

For the special people who voted "No", what right do you think you have to advocate for a government in which your religion is highest, and where everyone has to obey your religious laws?

Stop being so fucking ignorant.

Imagine if we agnosticists and atheists decided to outlaw religion entirely because it makes no scientific sense. I doubt the Bible-slammers and other fundamentalists would like that. People have intellectual rights. They have the right to live in a place ruled by laws free from religious interpretation. And that's why you people are called morons and idiots, because sometimes people's sanity comes into question.

On your last point; that is why some of the secularists did vote no.

On your last point; that is why some of the secularists did vote no.
A thankful few

A thankful few

No kidding.... But more than the religion No'ers...

Both are scarry; to think some people actually think that way...

No kidding.... But more than the religion No'ers...

Both are scarry; to think some people actually think that way...
(There are more secularists “no”s?… I saw them both at 6) But yeah they seem (at least the ones I know personally be the)of the “I got mine fuck you” attitude

Though interesting to see what happens when/if Christianity is no longer on top

For the special people who voted "No", what right do you think you have to advocate for a government in which your religion is highest, and where everyone has to obey your religious laws?

Stop being so fucking ignorant.

Imagine if we agnosticists and atheists decided to outlaw religion entirely because it makes no scientific sense. I doubt the Bible-slammers and other fundamentalists would like that. People have intellectual rights. They have the right to live in a place ruled by laws free from religious interpretation. And that's why you people are called morons and idiots, because sometimes people's sanity comes into question. Most of our (Western) laws are based on Christianity to a certain degree. Religion is not entirely separate from law at the moment - even in Europe.
The reason I wouldn't separate church and state is because I believe the church to be right. That's what all leaders do when they're in power - they do what they believe to be right, within their abilities. How is this different? Note that I am not advocating removing freedom of religion, or indoctrination of any kind.

Most of our (Western) laws are based on Christianity to a certain degree. Religion is not entirely separate from law at the moment - even in Europe.
The reason I wouldn't separate church and state is because I believe the church to be right. That's what all leaders do when they're in power - they do what they believe to be right, within their abilities. How is this different? Note that I am not advocating removing freedom of religion, or indoctrination of any kind.
And what happens when it is not your faith in power?

And what happens when it is not your faith in power? Um… isn't the answer to that sort of obvious? If it's not in power, how can it do anything?

Um… isn't the answer to that sort of obvious? If it's not in power, how can it do anything?

He is talking about the concept, stated in my sig...

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine

That is, by establishing a state religion, under the guise of protecting your own faith; you set about state determination of your religious doctrine; whereby, you, yourself, will be subject to the determinations of a religious order, which may no longer side with your own views.

Sic. Removing the wall of seperation; is tantamount to religious suicide.

Hell no. I'm too strong willed and viscious to let that happen to my thread.

It's vicious. Viscious makes me think of viscous which means syrupy.

It's vicious. Viscious makes me think of viscous which means syrupy.LOL! :p

No simply said I do not want my government determining what I should believe in

Or attempting to impose such

Though I am saddened by the number of Christians that are likely to select “yes” just because their religion is in the majority for now (though if world trends continue they wont be for too long)

I agree with your first two statements. The third... I think you ment "no" at least relative to the poll and initial question. The only problem is that there are several other things that need to fall into this issue, like the religions of "modern science" and "secularism".

You both clearly misunderstand what I wrote. A religious person is not disqualified from holding office because they're religious; rather, they're disqualified because their personal belief influences their political ones. There's a distinct difference. If a fundamentalist has justifications for his or her views besides religion, they're good to go. But it's wrong for someone who says the state should do something because Jesus says so to impose their religion on someone else. So take your hollow charges of bigotry somewhere else, and preferably direct them against an actual position rather than a contrived strawman.

So you don't think personal beliefs should influence their political belief?

What an insane logic.. It is not possible to make a decision with the brain, by pretending other information is not there. Its like looking at somones hand and then pretend to make a complete independent decision on what to play next. Its not possible... you could lose the game out of guilt, or win because you cheated.. or try and second guess... what you may have done had you not have known.... but its foolish to think one can do different.

So if I believe that Murder is wrong because I believe jesus says its wrong, then it would be wrong to want to make murder illegal? No.. you don't mean that... which makes your logic not humanly possible .. go back and rethink what your really trying to say.

The consititution is set up correctly... make no law against religion... make no law for religion... embrace.. or not however the people wish it to be... if the voters don't want you to say God Bless, they won't vote for you. If they don't want you to say... there is no God... then they won't vote for you.

Everything remains on the table... exept making law. Which means laws AGAINST or prohibiting religion are just as illegal as laws forcing religion.

Except that by having prayer in school (of course, teacher led. Students can pray all they want) you are forcing prayer in school (government agent endorsing a religion). Hense why it is illegal.
Case law is the interpritation of the Constitution. It is the constitution, rather, until it get overturned by the highest court. The constitution, as it stands, isn't a very useful document for legal matters at the core, for example there are tons of tiny little pieces of constitutional law that is helpfully not clarified in the constitution (for example, if "well regulated milita" means that the milita is regulated highly (eg, guns registered, etc) or that the milita simply isn't a bunch of gangsters. You walk a dangerous road, lined with bad company.

First, if the people wish to have a prayer... not a problem... if the people wish not to have a prayer... not a problem... I call it respect.

Second... Case law has little value when dealing with the Constitution... you have just described the problem with America... you believe the Courts are above the Constitution... that the document is not very useful. This thinking will lead to Civil War once again... however... your side will lose rather quickly.


Third... sorry but you have really no clue on what the Constitution is about... but the second amendment is to defend this country from people who think like you.

i.e. you changed the complete meaning to make it sound like a well regulated militia is all its about... the line has comma's between "militia", and "the right of the people to keep and bare arms." Those are two different rights... your trying to say that it must be a well regulated milita...

You do know what a comma is for right?



Correct, though not on public land (as if someone puts a ten commandment plaque in a courtroom outside of the proper context, if the government does not remove it, it is commiting an act of endorsement, and hense through inaction violating the establishment clause of the first amendment. Really? Congress shall make endorsement respecting the establishment of religion? Thats a new one How about this.... Lets just change it..

Congress shall not respect religion... that should make you happy... Not happening.

What is it about Liberals that think they are smart.. but can't read? You do know the difference between endorsement and law right? Try webster's dictionary.

http://www.m-w.com/


You can choose whatever you want to swear on. The swearing is the more important part. Not according to your logic... if the state can't recognize religion... then in fact the Bible would be off limits... you contradict yourself.. best rethink your logic.


Originalist, are you? Dead hand of the past... ahh... Dictator wanna be? Can't Amend it by law... so set up a supreme dictator who knows best... Typical Liberal. Mien Kampf..... BTW Hitler was a greatings card writer and artist... Pol Pot was a Radio DJ. meaning... innocence in appearance does not make innocence.



Funny you mention loving. As the statue in that case was written, it was established that marriage was between a white man and a white woman. By your own arguments, Loving wasn't a proper case, and we should go back to a segrigated society. Not at all, it spelled out the difference because that difference had to be addressed, there was no law against being Black. However... as the case... now that sodomy laws have been over turned... they are going back redifining marriage. By amending the Constitutions of the States... over whelmingly...



Loving wasn't about sodomy. It was about interracial marriage. You're shooting yourself in the foot. I didn't say Loving was about sodomy... reading is not a good thing for you... I said marriage was protected by sodomy laws. Thus it need not be defined as between a man and a women... Sodomy laws prevented the word "marriage" from being used in Law as representation of man and man.




Pardon? You're the one claiming that enforcing a separation between religion and the government is tantamount to endorsing atheism. No one is forcing gigantic monuments to be built saying "there is no god", which would be built if what you claimed was correct. You can't enforce what does not exist... you must first create it.. thus to create the separation as you say exists. You must destroy that which already exists. You walk through life backwards, created by lies and decepction. You can't destroy it unless you place the courts above the Constitution... which is exactly what your trying to do. Fire has a nasty habit of burning, the Courts and the Liberal agenda is playing with fire and silent majority is getting tired of waiting for you idiots to stop burning yourself...you don't learn.

Until it can be conclusively proven which religion or lack thereof is correct, there should be no religious influence over government.

Yes, they do. By definition, courts have to apply the statutes of the nation towards an end. They are the enforcement end of the legislative branch, if you will.

You do understand the difference between enforcement and making law right? They must interprete the law as written... not interprete the law as they see fit.

look how you left out most of the second amendment in your translation... then compound that error for the person who uses your poor judgment as precidence... for the next law. Its a childs game... that people play sitting around a campfire... wisper in ones ear.. one time ... one time only... pass it on... then see how it ends up.

Even children know better than the Courts. You are good at omission to twist values... but to no availe.

Hope I pointed out your errors clearly enough.

You do understand the difference between enforcement and making law right? They must interprete the law as written... not interprete the law as they see fit.
The law isnt black and white. If it was we wouldnt need a supreme court. The thing is judges dont interprete the law as they see fit. They interprete the law based on the language presented and past precedents set.

The law isnt black and white. If it was we wouldnt need a supreme court. The thing is judges dont interprete the law as they see fit. They interprete the law based on the language presented and past precedents set.Yeah. Right. In what universe do you think of? :p

You walk a dangerous road, lined with bad company.

First, if the people wish to have a prayer... not a problem... if the people wish not to have a prayer... not a problem... I call it respect.

Second... Case law has little value when dealing with the Constitution... you have just described the problem with America... you believe the Courts are above the Constitution... that the document is not very useful. This thinking will lead to Civil War once again... however... your side will lose rather quickly.

Let me say this again for you. Slowly.

Case

Law

Is

Constitutional

Law.


Case Law is the interpretation of the constitution, cited by judges to prevent them from having to rehash the same judicial arguments over and over again. It's especially useful in the lower courts which are not supposed to go against the rulings of the supreme court.

Third... sorry but you have really no clue on what the Constitution is about... but the second amendment is to defend this country from people who think like you.

I'm sorry, was that a death threat? You're treading a fine line.

Do tell me, how do I have no clue about what the Constitution is about?

i.e. you changed the complete meaning to make it sound like a well regulated militia is all its about... the line has comma's between "militia", and "the right of the people to keep and bare arms." Those are two different rights... your trying to say that it must be a well regulated militia...

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Have you studied any constitutional law, at all?

The second amendment interpretation is divided into two main camps. First is the individual rights camp, the second is the states rights camp. As of right now, the state's rights camp is winning out (has been for quite a long time, actually. Very few laws have ever been struck down on second amendment grounds, and local laws are nearly immune from the second amendment, for rather spurious reasons dealing with the fact that the supreme court has never gotten around to extending the 14th amendment coving due process to the second amendment. Surprise, I disagree with the courts!). Among the state's rights (eg, the second amendment forbids congress from ordering all state militias to disband) camp there is an argument over the meaning of the words 'well regulated', if they stand to mean just that a bunch of yokels calling themselves a militia can't go out and buy an abrams main battle tank, or that the state governments can highly regulate the militias. The individual rights arguments have basically fallen flat on their face lately, though I do believe that two of the circuits are currently in contradiction with each other (one saying that there is no individual right, the other saying that there is), so the supremes will have to deal with it, eventually.

You do know what a comma is for right?

Why yes, yes I do.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, are both subordinate clauses to the main clause, A well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Infringed how? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In what context? In a militia.

Personally, I'm on your side, I'm using this as an example. I generally believe that militia falls under every citizen of the united states (there are still provisions on the books providing for this).

Really? Congress shall make endorsement respecting the establishment of religion? Thats a new one How about this.... Lets just change it..

Congress shall not respect religion... that should make you happy... Not happening.

What is it about Liberals that think they are smart.. but can't read? You do know the difference between endorsement and law right? Try webster's dictionary.

http://www.m-w.com/

Read this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/02.html#1
The reasoning can be found, oddly enough, in the word endorse.
en•dorse Audio pronunciation of "endorse" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-dôrs) also in•dorse (n-)
tr.v. en•dorsed, en•dors•ing, en•dors•es

1. To write one's signature on the back of (a check, for example) as evidence of the legal transfer of its ownership, especially in return for the cash or credit indicated on its face.
2. To place (one's signature), as on a contract, to indicate approval of its contents or terms.
3. To acknowledge (receipt of payment) by signing a bill, draft, or other instrument.
4. To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction:

The last one. Support to.

Not according to your logic... if the state can't recognize religion... then in fact the Bible would be off limits... you contradict yourself.. best rethink your logic.

The state can recognize religion all it wants. The state can not endorse religion. Two distinct things. Allowing people to be sworn in on the bible is fine, forcing people to be sworn in on the bible (or take a religious oath to that effect) is not.

ahh... Dictator wanna be? Can't Amend it by law... so set up a supreme dictator who knows best... Typical Liberal. Mien Kampf..... BTW Hitler was a greatings card writer and artist... Pol Pot was a Radio DJ. meaning... innocence in appearance does not make innocence.

:rolleyes:

Not at all, it spelled out the difference because that difference had to be addressed, there was no law against being Black. However... as the case... now that sodomy laws have been over turned... they are going back redifining marriage. By amending the Constitutions of the States... over whelmingly...

This makes very little sense. Loving overturned a Virginia statute that had the clear intent of separating blacks and whites on the grounds that it violates the Constitution. Loving has nothing to do with sodomy laws.

I didn't say Loving was about sodomy... reading is not a good thing for you... I said marriage was protected by sodomy laws. Thus it need not be defined as between a man and a women... Sodomy laws prevented the word "marriage" from being used in Law as representation of man and man.

Right to privacy. Fourth Amendment. Sodomy laws are highly unconstitutional. Have you noticed that it's the state supreme courts, not the national courts, who are striking down strictly man-woman marriage laws?


You can't enforce what does not exist... you must first create it.. thus to create the separation as you say exists. You must destroy that which already exists. You walk through life backwards, created by lies and decepction. You can't destroy it unless you place the courts above the Constitution... which is exactly what your trying to do. Fire has a nasty habit of burning, the Courts and the Liberal agenda is playing with fire and silent majority is getting tired of waiting for you idiots to stop burning yourself...you don't learn.
What liberal agenda? Look up, for christ sakes, you have no support. 86% of this board says they don't want you to institute your theocracy upon them.

Your arguments make no sense. Holding your hands up to your head and saying I can't hear you isn't an argument. You've yet to give me your legal standing as to why the first amendment does not create a wall of separation, you've only made ad hominem attacks against liberal judges and vague ad hominem attacks against myself to 'read the constitution'. Well, I have. I've done it quite a bit. I've even studied it. I'd like to see your reasoning, please.

You do understand the difference between enforcement and making law right? They must interprete the law as written... not interprete the law as they see fit.

And they don't. Activist judges is a massive strawman created by the right in an attempt to slander the judicial branch. I disagree with just as many supreme court cases as you do (Kelo v. New London, Castle Rock, Brand X, Raich, and a few more in this term alone), however, you don't see me screaming "activist judges, impeachment, impeachment" or vague death threats.

Please, show me cases of judges waving their magic wands and creating law.

look how you left out most of the second amendment in your translation...

I didn't.

then compound that error for the person who uses your poor judgment as precidence... for the next law.

Bad caselaw gets overturned by the higher courts. Eventually. That's why we have the entire system of appeals courts and the highest courts. We place our best and brightest on the highest courts (recall, the majority of justices on the court are republican appointees) and let them straighten out the lower courts when they get out of line or deal with the more difficult cases, where the interpritation of the constitution is not as clear or a clear precident has not been set (most 10 commandment cases are like this, there really isn't a clear test, not an objective one anyway).

Its a childs game... that people play sitting around a campfire... wisper in ones ear.. one time ... one time only... pass it on... then see how it ends up.

Even children know better than the Courts. You are good at omission to twist values... but to no availe.

More ad hominem. I'm getting tired of this.

Hope I pointed out your errors clearly enough.
Ad hominem and acting like a patronizing child.

I'll let you guys do most of the details here. One point though, about the case law.

Case law has infinitely less impact on the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS 'must' by definition be less influenced by case law than other courts because the SCOTUS must regulate itself from past error.

I'll let you guys do most of the details here. One point though, about the case law.

Case law has infinitely less impact on the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS 'must' by definition be less influenced by case law than other courts because the SCOTUS must regulate itself from past error.
The supreme court is the one court that is supposed to be allowed to interpret the constitution. The others, unless they get a novel case (unlikely) are supposed to follow the precedent of the supreme court.

Of course, that doesn't stop some courts like the ninth from taking liberties with the supreme court's opinions…

I do believe that the President shouldn't put his bullshit views onto other people. ala abortion and gay marriage. If it's against his views, tough shit for him. Everyone else doesn't care about it. So just shut the hell up about it. Bush is a moron, period.

Good thing he needs to write up a proposal to congress that needs to be passed. If it does get passed, and it's against our views. Then the Judiciacry system will come through, because it's against the consitituiton.

Anyway, religion should not be entangled with the government.

I'll let you guys do most of the details here. One point though, about the case law.

Case law has infinitely less impact on the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS 'must' by definition be less influenced by case law than other courts because the SCOTUS must regulate itself from past error.

Ahhh ok.

Hmmm then I guess all those cases they refuse to hear was not because they felt previous rulings came into play?

Hmmm I guess the fact that in some cases they refer to previous cases was just filler?

Hmmm...

Ahhh ok.

Hmmm then I guess all those cases they refuse to hear was not because they felt previous rulings came into play?

Hmmm I guess the fact that in some cases they refer to previous cases was just filler?

Hmmm...
More rather the SCOTUS has room to disregard lower or past precedent, while the lower courts are supposedly bound by it.

Me? I'm a practicing Jew, and I have a much stronger stance on church and state than most atheists.

To me, religious institutions are inherently different from the state in that they're justified, in essence, solely by faith. "X is true because I believe it to be" is a logical religious argument, because all religion stems from a leap of faith. Either you feel religious or you don't.

The state, however, is based entirely on rational human analysis. What would be the best way to organize human society? The most common answer is a state. Why? To better humanity. Although people differ radically on what "better" means, they still all agree that it should be the end goal for any state (unless they view human existance as bad, in which case the state system doesn't concern them inasmuch as it allows for the best way to kill all the people). They debate this point using justification based in logic rather than faith. As a result, they can justify policies for reasons other than "I feel that way and feel that God does as well."

Therefore, any policy based on religion voids the rational function of the state. The state loses its ability to be a rational actor, and decisions such as "We should ban cars because I feel that way" become legitimate.

Further, the state should not impose beliefs on any individual unless a clear and logical reason can be provided for doing so. "I feel that way" isn't such a justification.

What's the conclusion to all of this? Anyone whose religious beliefs influence their political decisions should be disqualified from office. That's right, I'll say it again - if your religion at all makes political decisions, than you are not competent to run a nation. I realize how radical this view is, but I feel it's the only way to create a viable church-state separation. Otherwise, a state church is created in all but name when abortion and gay marriage are banned because they're an abomination against God.

I'm afraid I must jump on the bandwagon of those that criticize you for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Separation of Church and State does not mean that religious ideas and sentiments are barred from the public arena. Rather, the marketplace of ideas is open to all and religious ideas carry no greater weight than any other.

Free Exercise of Religion means free exercise for everyone -- whatever their religion or nonreligion. You can no more discriminate against some because of certain religious views than you can others for having different religious views or anti-religious views.

Article VI, Clause 3 specifically provides that there shall be no religious test of qualification for office. You would jettison this valuable principle.

I believe that there should be no recognition of any religion by government. Any recognition of a religion results in discrimination, and inconsistent treatment of the nation's citizens.

I'm afraid I must jump on the bandwagon of those that criticize you for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Separation of Church and State does not mean that religious ideas and sentiments are barred from the public arena. Rather, the marketplace of ideas is open to all and religious ideas carry no greater weight than any other.

Free Exercise of Religion means free exercise for everyone -- whatever their religion or nonreligion. You can no more discriminate against some because of certain religious views than you can others for having different religious views or anti-religious views.

Article VI, Clause 3 specifically provides that there shall be no religious test of qualification for office. You would jettison this valuable principle.

I agree with Deleuze on this one. I don't think that the discrimination he/she is making is based on the having of religious views, but on the inability to separate their religious views from the rational function of the state. If a legislator cannot freely decide what would be the most correct way to regulate society because a religion dictates their morality, they are failing in their duties.

I don't know, but I would guess that the "religious test" that clause refers to is one that determines what the individual's religious standing is, not whether or not that religion affects their better judgement.

There is no such thing as seperation of Church and State, its a misused notion promoted from a Jefferson letter, in which he stated the union essentually creates a seperation of Church and State.

There must be something in TOS that requires someone to post these silly statements in every thread related to SCOTUS or religion or government or ....

The phrase is "wall of separation of Church and State" and it has been used by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment since at least 1878. The particular phrase came from a letter by Jefferson.

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

The phrase "separation of Church and State" was used by many Founders -- particularly James Madison -- to describe their view of the First Amendment and the proper roles of religion and government.

The concept of a wall of separation of Church and State is firmly emeshed in the language of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause, in the original intent of the Founders, and in 200 or so years of Supreme Court caselaw up to the recent Ten Commandment decisions.

The Constitution says, for those who have not read it and claim to have read it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Simply means, the law is restricted from imposing its will upon the Church, it does not mean the Church is prohibited from imposing its will upon the Law.

Bullshit. By the clear language the government is prohibited from doing anything "respecting an establishment of religion" or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Everyone, regardless of their religious view, is entitled to the Free Exercise of Religion. This includes all of the non-Christian religions, non-theistic religions, atheists, agnostics, etc.

And government may not endorse, favor, support, etc. religion.

This is most eloquently explained by the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Here is how it works. Only Congress can write law, not the Judges (as some believe) nor can a Church write law. So lets assume a Church gets a leader into power... and it wants to promote its view as the correct view of Religion... how can they do this without writing law against other views? It can't be done.... Thus be a person religious or not has zero bearing on how laws are written. Thus a wall of seperation exists to protect religion from Government... NOT to protect Government from Religion. It is a one way wall... and only needs to be defended from one side.. protect Religion from Government and freedom of religion exists.

These people who want to protect Government from Religion are trying to make law "AGAINST" religion... which is a dirict violation of the Constitution. They use the Courts... (which is another violation of the Constitution) to try and write law. This movement is in itself a religion, just not based on God. This movement is trying to impose law against religion to establish their views as the dominating view... which is another dirict violation of the Constitution.

The Wall of seperation is being violated in exactly the manner that the First Amendment is trying to protect. The Government is not allowed to make law against religion, period... and because the Church can't make law... it has the same avenue as everyone else. Beings how you can't write a law "FOR" a religion without it being "AGAINST" another religion... both have the same meaning.

Your views are confused and erroneous in too many ways for it to be worthwhile to point out everyone. Here are some highlights.

1. You mistate the role of the judiciary under the Constitution. The Constitution itself gives the role of interpreting and enforcing the Constitution to the Courts. See Marbury v. Madison (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&page=137), 5 US 137 (1803).

2. The wall of separation of Church and State is intended to stop flow both ways. What part of keeping Church separate from State and State separate from Church is so hard to understand?

3. The error of your view that the separation is one-way is even clearer when one considers the clear language of the Establishment Clause.

4. To the extent all you are saying is that religious people can serve in governement and express religious views, damn straight. Of course they can.

5. Pray tell what laws "AGAINST religion" you are talking about. Meethinks this is pure hysteria.

the problem i have with the whole 'seperation...' thing is this:

some folks think that the goverment should almost be anti-church. its rediculous but i don't understand why Boy Scouts shouldn't have access to public lands just becuase one or two of their veiws are offence, yet other groups whos ideas are offence to me CAN use them???

Just as the no prayer in school thing. if my son wants to pray in school, then he should be allowed to. just as someone who does not want to pray can look at a picture of Shaq or Harry Potter as a role model/inspirations(not saying those are bad or good, but not who I would personally want MY son to look at for ideas on life, etc).

anyway, as long as the goverment does not enforce rules on churches which prevent them from spreading their word(as long at their ideas do not discriminate or hurt others) then i dont care. Let the different religions compete if they wish. in the end we will find out who was 'right' anyway.

:)

the problem i have with the whole 'seperation...' thing is this:

some folks think that the goverment should almost be anti-church. its rediculous but i don't understand why Boy Scouts shouldn't have access to public lands just becuase one or two of their veiws are offence, yet other groups whos ideas are offence to me CAN use them???

OK. You have this factually wrong. Boy Scouts are granted equal access. In fact, they are guaranteed it.

What has changed recently was that the Boy Scouts are no longer entitled to special treatment. The Boy Scouts declared themselves a private religious organization in order to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. Government cannot give preferential treatment to a private religious organization. Thus, the Boy Scouts have lost some government funding, some exclusive access to private lands, etc.

The Boy Scouts have not lost equal access to public lands. That is simply untrue.

Just as the no prayer in school thing. if my son wants to pray in school, then he should be allowed to. just as someone who does not want to pray can look at a picture of Shaq or Harry Potter as a role model/inspirations(not saying those are bad or good, but not who I would personally want MY son to look at for ideas on life, etc).

Again, nothing prevents anyone from praying individually in school. If your son wishes to pray on his own initiative, so be it. (Subject to neutral rules about disruption, noise, etc., that apply to any other activity.)

Separation of Church and State forbids government (i.e., school- or teacher-) led or endorsed prayer. At the same time, it protects the rights of individuals to pray.

anyway, as long as the goverment does not enforce rules on churches which prevent them from spreading their word(as long at their ideas do not discriminate or hurt others) then i dont care. Let the different religions compete if they wish. in the end we will find out who was 'right' anyway.

:)

Then you should have no problem with the separation of Church and State.

:)

i got a warning for trolling so i gotta be careful with what i say

Here is the very confusing explanation of seperation of church and state: Religion will not be allowed to be in a government building, and will not be able to influence government desicisions. Government will not be allowed in a religious building, and will not be able to influence government desicisions.

So, there is an order for seperation of church and state in our constitustion. So, our government should follow these rules, and the religions in our country should follow these rules as well. Unforutantly, i find these rules are being broken :( ...

my bad. i didnt follow it to close or to the end, but i just remember when i was living in San Diego, the whole "Boy Scouts no longer allowed to use Balboa Park" thing. its been awhile, and my bad for not researching more before i posted. thanks for clearing that up :)

If lobbyists managed to remove the legal separation between church and state here in America, I think it would be complete chaos. For one, not everyone is Christian. And not every Christian thinks such a change should be so.

If you wish to worship Satan, go ahead. If you want to worship your cat, go ahead. It's not my problem, not my business, and I couldn't give two shits about it. If you worship your god and try to force me to worship the same god, one of us is going to end up in a sorry state. Leave religion in the home, in the buildings of worship, whatever religion you may adhere to. Forcing others, especially in the modern day, has rarely yielded "good" results. Ethno-centricity is a heightened reactionary off-product of globalism that tends to alienate the individual in a world where in-person interaction is less and less.

You might be 'OK' with using your religious ideology or sacred texts as law, but what does that mean for a large minority of people who don't adhere to your dogma? You might also say you don't oppose freedom of speech or thought. But think about how hard it would be to maintain democratic institutions in a theocracy. It's unrealistic. Theocracy is repressive, whether it benefits your ideology or not. It is not camp cupcake.

So basically, for those who think a religious state is viable in Western developed nations, go ahead and try. Don't be surprised if you create a situation of civil disorder and violence.

Separation of church and state is an ok concept, since it was designed to prevent government from EVER INTERFERING with personal religion. But the problem is that atheist bigots use the "seperation of church and state" as a rallying banner to bludgeon their bigoted anti-Christian views into the masses.

The "wall of separation" so blithely referred to was never established in the founding texts; the quote was added in the 1879 case by (oddly enough) a former preacher. The actual definition of 'church and state' would more appropriately be described as a one-way valve. Government was NEVER allowed to interfere with RELIGION. Religion was ALWAYS allowed to influence government.

Also, even though much weight is given to Thomas Jefferson's religious neutrality, it is also important to remember that dozens of people were involved in the founding documents - and Jefferson's deist ideals were in the minority.

All that said, however, even total separation of church and state would be 'fair'. However given the course of this thread, and the examples the average reader should be taking note of: "If someone follows a religion, they should not be allowed in office." It is clear that the actual intent of most secularists who espouse the 'separation of church and state' is to discriminate against members of the church.

Separation of church and state is an ok concept, since it was designed to prevent government from EVER INTERFERING with personal religion. But the problem is that atheist bigots use the "seperation of church and state" as a rallying banner to bludgeon their bigoted anti-Christian views into the masses.

Wonderful ad hominem. This thread is full of them

The "wall of separation" so blithely referred to was never established in the founding texts; the quote was added in the 1879 case by (oddly enough) a former preacher. The actual definition of 'church and state' would more appropriately be described as a one-way valve. Government was NEVER allowed to interfere with RELIGION. Religion was ALWAYS allowed to influence government.

The quote itself is from a founding father. Religion, by the wording of the first amendment, is clearly not allowed to endorse itself through government, irrelevent of what may have gone on in the past.

Also, even though much weight is given to Thomas Jefferson's religious neutrality, it is also important to remember that dozens of people were involved in the founding documents - and Jefferson's deist ideals were in the minority.

The point of this being? Just because Jefferson held a minority belief does not somehow invalidate the point of the first amendment, namely that it consists of a way to ensure that government and religion do not become bedmates.

All that said, however, even total separation of church and state would be 'fair'. However given the course of this thread, and the examples the average reader should be taking note of: "If someone follows a religion, they should not be allowed in office." It is clear that the actual intent of most secularists who espouse the 'separation of church and state' is to discriminate against members of the church.
Thanks for telling me what my intentions are. I'll be sure to discriminate against the next fundimentalist I see.

Separation of church and state is an ok concept, since it was designed to prevent government from EVER INTERFERING with personal religion. But the problem is that atheist bigots use the "seperation of church and state" as a rallying banner to bludgeon their bigoted anti-Christian views into the masses.
Next thing you'll say is the government is putting floride in the water.....

The "wall of separation" so blithely referred to was never established in the founding texts; the quote was added in the 1879 case by (oddly enough) a former preacher. The actual definition of 'church and state' would more appropriately be described as a one-way valve. Government was NEVER allowed to interfere with RELIGION. Religion was ALWAYS allowed to influence government.
Religion is never allowed to influence government. Because when that happens you'll get a state sponsered religion and you cant have that in the USA. The seperation of church and state is meant to go both ways. Its there to protect religions from government intervention and also to make sure that the government does not become intangled in a specific religion

Also, even though much weight is given to Thomas Jefferson's religious neutrality, it is also important to remember that dozens of people were involved in the founding documents - and Jefferson's deist ideals were in the minority.
You going to give us proof to back up this claim?

All that said, however, even total separation of church and state would be 'fair'. However given the course of this thread, and the examples the average reader should be taking note of: "If someone follows a religion, they should not be allowed in office." It is clear that the actual intent of most secularists who espouse the 'separation of church and state' is to discriminate against members of the church.
And I dont suppose you would say it would be fair for me to characterize the whole right by the few quotes in the american taliban thread? The point is that just because a few people say something dont make a generalization about the rest from it.

All that said, however, even total separation of church and state would be 'fair'. However given the course of this thread, and the examples the average reader should be taking note of: "If someone follows a religion, they should not be allowed in office." It is clear that the actual intent of most secularists who espouse the 'separation of church and state' is to discriminate against members of the church.

Totally incorrect. As a secularist and an agnostic, I must say that my intent in supporting the separation of church and state is to prevent members of the church from using the government to discriminate against me.

EDIT: And look back at the top of this page and read Cat-Tribe's post concerning your points. He has already pretty soundly destroyed all of them

Totally incorrect. As a secularist and an agnostic, I must say that my intent in supporting the separation of church and state is to prevent members of the church from using the government to discriminate against me.

EDIT: And look back at the top of this page and read Cat-Tribe's post concerning your points. He has already pretty soundly destroyed all of them

How do you define discrimination? As an agnostic, you probably don't believe in allowing public prayer in schools. (Am I right?)

And yet, since your beliefs are "against" public prayer, than by default (by banning public prayer in schools) the government has already endorsed the religion of atheism.

If that's not discrimination, then what is?

And no, Cat's posts don't directly address what I said. In fact, he was also very concerned with the bigots on here who claim religious people shouldn't be allowed to run for office - something we agree on for once.

How do you define discrimination? As an agnostic, you probably don't believe in allowing public prayer in schools. (Am I right?)

Led by teachers, correct

And yet, since your beliefs are "against" public prayer, than by default (by banning public prayer in schools) the government has already endorsed the religion of atheism.

Non sequitor. The failure to endorse prayer does not endorse atheism.

If that's not discrimination, then what is?

You're right, it isn't discrimination. Forcing people to pray is.

And no, Cat's posts don't directly address what I said. In fact, he was also very concerned with the bigots on here who claim religious people shouldn't be allowed to run for office - something we agree on for once.
They should be allowed to run for office.

damn... misclicked... My choice is No (religious)
clicked on No (secular)

however, the stipulation is that the democratic process is not touched. that way, heck, even an Islamic-fundamentalist can get into office but after his terms over... he can be voted out.

damn... misclicked... My choice is No (religious)
clicked on No (secular)

however, the stipulation is that the democratic process is not touched. that way, heck, even an Islamic-fundamentalist can get into office but after his terms over... he can be voted out.
So you let a theocracy trample over the rights of the minority? Nice system you have there.

Led by teachers, correct

Non sequitor. The failure to endorse prayer does not endorse atheism.

You're right, it isn't discrimination. Forcing people to pray is.

They should be allowed to run for office.

It's not a 'failure to endorse'. The government has consistantly taken a stand against people with strong religious beliefs. BANNING religious practices. Attempting to equate preaching/conversion with assault. Levying ridiculous and discriminatory laws against various religions. That is ANTI.

Therefore, the government has artificially created a default status of atheism, by oppressing those who would dare believe in anything other than it. Taking actions against religious practices is endorsing other religions that do not practice those traditions: except that, when you censor all religions, the only one left for the government to endorse is atheism!

How do you define discrimination? As an agnostic, you probably don't believe in allowing public prayer in schools. (Am I right?)

Yes and no. Any situation where time is taken out of classroom activities, or an administrator or teacher leads the prayer, I am opposed to. Any situation that occurs where a student or a group of students engage in unsolicited or unsponsored prayer without denying other students of the function of the school, I am ok with.

So I am ok with prayer in school, as long as it doesn't interfere with the studies of other students.

And yet, since your beliefs are "against" public prayer, than by default (by banning public prayer in schools) the government has already endorsed the religion of atheism.

If that's not discrimination, then what is?

Read the first part of this post and see if your question still applies.

And no, Cat's posts don't directly address what I said. In fact, he was also very concerned with the bigots on here who claim religious people shouldn't be allowed to run for office - something we agree on for once.

You are correct that he agreed with your last part, but I was addressing that. He did explain why your comments on the term "separation of church and state" and your ideas of a "one way valve" are incorrect.

EDIT: Here is my opinion on when religious people shouldn't be allowed to run for office:


I agree with Deleuze on this one. I don't think that the discrimination he/she is making is based on the having of religious views, but on the inability to separate their religious views from the rational function of the state. If a legislator cannot freely decide what would be the most correct way to regulate society because a religion dictates their morality, they are failing in their duties.

So you let a theocracy trample over the rights of the minority? Nice system you have there.if your taking extremes. then, I shall reply in kind, yes, better than seeing Anarchy rule under the pretense of 'Freedom.'

It's not a 'failure to endorse'. The government has consistantly taken a stand against people with strong religious beliefs. BANNING religious practices. Attempting to equate preaching/conversion with assault. Levying ridiculous and discriminatory laws against various religions. That is ANTI.

Such as? Attempting to force your faith on someone can possibly be construed as assault, but that's a stretch

Therefore, the government has artificially created a default status of atheism, by oppressing those who would dare believe in anything other than it. Taking actions against religious practices is endorsing other religions that do not practice those traditions: except that, when you censor all religions, the only one left for the government to endorse is atheism!
The government is neutral on the issue of religion. They are neither atheist nor christian, nor buddist, nor $religion. Disengaging from religion is not endorsing atheism, and that is all that most atheists want.

if your taking extremes. then, I shall reply in kind, yes, better than seeing Anarchy rule under the pretense of 'Freedom.'
How exactly is what we have now anarchy rule?

It's not a 'failure to endorse'. The government has consistantly taken a stand against people with strong religious beliefs. BANNING religious practices. Attempting to equate preaching/conversion with assault. Levying ridiculous and discriminatory laws against various religions. That is ANTI.
So not wanting to endorse a single religion is banning religious practices? Lets look at some of the things you have said. I have never seen the government attempting to equate preaching/conversion with assault. Care to provide some links for that claim? And the levying rediculous laws such as?

Therefore, the government has artificially created a default status of atheism, by oppressing those who would dare believe in anything other than it. Taking actions against religious practices is endorsing other religions that do not practice those traditions: except that, when you censor all religions, the only one left for the government to endorse is atheism!
How do you get the lack of a belief in god from a refusal to endorse a single religion?

How exactly is what we have now anarchy rule?watch the trends.

The government is neutral on the issue of religion.

Granted some of these sites are biased, but I just got what I could find on short notice.

http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/june99/060199e.htm

http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Editorials/fbchighcourt.htm

http://www.cacatholic.org/h/pr/pr40301-56701.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer/index.html

http://www.krqe.com/expandedb.asp?RECORD_KEY[newsb]=ID&ID%5Bnewsb%5D=10720

And these are only a fraction. Clearly our government has a stance on religion.

In my mind, at least, when President Bush commends "Focus on the Family" based in colorado springs, for upholding "Family Values" by demonstrating against abortion and gays and lesbians, and donating funds to conservative legislators that would definetely support an abortion or gay marrage amendment, that is [in my mind] approving a religious' groups' active involvement in the government.

It's not a 'failure to endorse'. The government has consistantly taken a stand against people with strong religious beliefs. BANNING religious practices. Attempting to equate preaching/conversion with assault. Levying ridiculous and discriminatory laws against various religions. That is ANTI.

Because their actions were either being disruptive to the educational process or bordering on harassment. Schools merely like things orderly; as long as the individual isn't drawing attention to verself, things are fine.

You're worried that the kids won't be praying in the classroom. There's a good reason. Religion should not be taught as fact.

Therefore, the government has artificially created a default status of atheism, by oppressing those who would dare believe in anything other than it. Taking actions against religious practices is endorsing other religions that do not practice those traditions: except that, when you censor all religions, the only one left for the government to endorse is atheism!

Wrong. Atheism is an active ideology, centered upon disbelief in God. People will be nailed just as easily for preaching no God in schools as they would be for yes God.

This leaves us with the schools being prohibited from teaching any determination of things that cannot possibly be observed. This is a far cry from "There is no god".

Granted some of these sites are biased, but I just got what I could find on short notice.

http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/june99/060199e.htm

http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Editorials/fbchighcourt.htm

http://www.cacatholic.org/h/pr/pr40301-56701.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer/index.html

http://www.krqe.com/expandedb.asp?RECORD_KEY[newsb]=ID&ID%5Bnewsb%5D=10720

And these are only a fraction. Clearly our government has a stance on religion.

What do you know those links are either about the government not endorsing a single religion over others or choosing universal human rights over the morals of one group which arent held by others. I think its pretty clear that the Government isnt endorsing a single religion with what you have posted.

Alright. Time to clear things up.

1. Just to remind people, the lack of a religion is not a religion. i.e. secularism, rationalism, atheism, agnosticism, zen buddhism, are not religions, but philosophies. If it don't dictate morals, let alone follow a jello mold of preset standards, it aint a religion, and doesn't have a central party to favor.

2. Neutrality on religion can't be construed as favoring atheism. That's a non sequiter.

3. If you're in doubt about whether the government is unfairly ruling against [Christian] religion, simply place yourself in the position of a Hindu, religious Buddhist, or other non Juedo-religious person. If you have the possibility of being legitimately offended, either by feeling left out, singled out, discriminated against, etc., then the government isn't doing anything wrong.

4. It's sad I should have to say this, but Judeo-religions didn't (and don't) precedent moral. Hammarabis Code is proof enough, though it can be argued that it was inherently necessary that for any prehistoric civilization to survive it create a set of laws. If Jesus is the only thing keeping you from going on a murderous rampage, I suggest you seek help immediately.

Atheism is an active ideology

Aaaaaah! Where's Myrth when you need him?!
Atheism is not a religion. Period.

...and um, no hard feelings.

I do believe that the President shouldn't put his bullshit views onto other people. ala abortion and gay marriage. If it's against his views, tough shit for him. Everyone else doesn't care about it. So just shut the hell up about it. Bush is a moron, period.

Good thing he needs to write up a proposal to congress that needs to be passed. If it does get passed, and it's against our views. Then the Judiciacry system will come through, because it's against the consitituiton.

Anyway, religion should not be entangled with the government.



Actually, we DO care about it. Liberals and conservatives alike have very strong opinions on gay marriage and abortion. Labeling someone a moron for pursuing their beliefs is tantamount to to the condemnation of nearly all humans.

Alright. Time to clear things up.


2. Neutrality on religion can't be construed as favoring atheism. That's a logical fallacy with a fancy name that I'm too lazy to look up. :D


The closest I could find is denying the antecedent (but for some reason that I am too tired for it just does not seem to fit)

That or a simple non following ... but tired lol

Led by teachers, correct

Non sequitor. The failure to endorse prayer does not endorse atheism.

You're right, it isn't discrimination. Forcing people to pray is.

They should be allowed to run for office.



Permitting school prayer for those who would wish to participate is not an "endorsement" of religion. Banning, however, is an infringement upon the person's right to practice their religion.

Permitting school prayer for those who would wish to participate is not an "endorsement" of religion. Banning, however, is an infringement upon the person's right to practice their religion.

But then again the government never banned students from praying in school. What the government did ban was school led prayer in public schools for example a principle doing so over the loudspeaker and having children following along.

Just found this thread, but I'll start by being brief: freedom OF religion requires freedom FROM religion.

Permitting school prayer for those who would wish to participate is not an "endorsement" of religion. Banning, however, is an infringement upon the person's right to practice their religion.
What are you going off on? at least to me it was fairly clear he was talking about school sponsored prayer (such as a teacher leading a class in prayer) rather then personal prayer by students

a principle doing so over the loudspeaker and having children following along.

Man, the South sucks so hard. :(

Also, it was Christian prayer. That's establishing a specific religion through government sanction or inaction.

ACK! I read through this thread, and I want to clear up some misconceptions about my original post:

I never said that religious people should not be able to run for office. Read my posts on this thread. I won't respond to the people who criticize me for saying that, because I never said it. It's not that hard to understand the distinction I (and Vittos later) drew in my (our) posts. I also resent being called a bigot for daring to say that bigotry based on religion shouldn't be allowed in government. Name calling doesn't help anyone's arguments.

I will, however, respond to Cat-Tribe's post, as some of it is responsive.

I'm afraid I must jump on the bandwagon of those that criticize you for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
:(

Separation of Church and State does not mean that religious ideas and sentiments are barred from the public arena. Rather, the marketplace of ideas is open to all and religious ideas carry no greater weight than any other.
You're thinking like a lawyer here, which is understandable, given that you are one. That's the current legal definition of the term, which I don't agree with. My argument is more theoretical - this is what the separation of Church and State should mean, because that's the only way to guarantee it. Because it's a false separation in which someone can ban gay marriage because it's an abomination against God. Why is that any different than a state church dictating policy? I don't think it is.

Free Exercise of Religion means free exercise for everyone -- whatever their religion or nonreligion. You can no more discriminate against some because of certain religious views than you can others for having different religious views or anti-religious views.
Exercising your belief means you can profess it and follow its tenets. It doesn't mean you get to impose your beliefs on others. All I have to win is that any conception of separation of church and state other than mine still allows for religious individuals to impose their beliefs on others in order to prove that there's a net increase in ability for free exercise in my world.

Article VI, Clause 3 specifically provides that there shall be no religious test of qualification for office. You would jettison this valuable principle.
That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A constitutional amendment saying that anyone of any religion could run for office so long as they separated their religion from their politics would preserve the principle while fixing the myriad problems with the status quo conception of church/state separation.

The law isnt black and white. If it was we wouldnt need a supreme court. The thing is judges dont interprete the law as they see fit. They interprete the law based on the language presented and past precedents set.

Wrong and here is why.

First, marriage when dealing with law was between one man and one women. Since the Sodomy laws have changed, marriage can now be assumed to include a man and a man or a women and a women. Thus the meaning of marriage was changed. So the law that said a marriage is between two consenting adults.. meant it was between two consenting adults that were one male and one female.

It would be like Bob Jones winning 100 million in a lottery... and you change your name to Bob Jones and claim the money as yours.

Or lets say a law is made to help people who make under $20,000 a year, and you qualify for free housing. Then the Feds remove 1 zero from all money, and property values are all reduced by removing one zero... thus nothing has changed. However, if that loop hole existed about free housing, that would mean by the letter of "that law" anyone that was making 200,000 a year that is now making 20,000 a year gets free housing. Because the meaning was changed after the law was made.

This is exactly why States are having to redefine marraige, because Liberals have over time changed mucked up the meaning of the word.

Do you know how errors are compounded? take a ruler, 12" long mark off 1 mile, 5280 ft. then measure the mile... if your off 1/8" each time, that would be 55 ft you could be off. Now thats not a lot... but lets say your a farmer and you own a sq. mile.. so you mark off your sqaure... and your off by 55 ft... and that land butts up to a subdivision with $300,000 homes sitting on 55 x 120 ft lots. Guess what, that farmer now owns a whole row of homes less the roads thats 40 homes or 12 million bucks plus 40 families that are homeless. That is how precedence your so found of works. You base a decision on a bad decision... which is later the base for another bad decision. Soon, you have no clue on what the original intent of the law was and you destroy families in the process.

The logic is sound, and in fact this is what is happening.. The courts beleive themselves "above" the Constitution.

There must be something in TOS that requires someone to post these silly statements in every thread related to SCOTUS or religion or government or ....

The phrase is "wall of separation of Church and State" and it has been used by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment since at least 1878. The particular phrase came from a letter by Jefferson. Yes, its called reading and actually researching something before posting... you should try it

the phrase as written vs the phrase based on presidence of interpertation.

As written 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 The focus of Jefferson was that legislature should make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof. Then the conclusion or the result of that would be building a wall of separation between church and state.

That wall is to protect the church... for the state never needs protection from the church...because the church can't make law. What you assume is that a Wall must exist... without having to do the work before hand. You GOAL is the Wall... when the Wall is only the results of the first to actions.

So if we fail to make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof... or if we make laws respecting "AN" establishment of religion... meaning "one" ... not "all" or not "none"... then we will not have built the wall.

You can't build the wall if you make law prohibiting the free excercise therof.

I agree with Deleuze on this one. I don't think that the discrimination he/she is making is based on the having of religious views, but on the inability to separate their religious views from the rational function of the state. If a legislator cannot freely decide what would be the most correct way to regulate society because a religion dictates their morality, they are failing in their duties.

I don't know, but I would guess that the "religious test" that clause refers to is one that determines what the individual's religious standing is, not whether or not that religion affects their better judgement.

Except that ones views on politics are an extention of ones personal religious views. No religious tests, means just that; including to the extent of no tests even upon how much they make their legislative decisions by their religious morality.

Such disqualification, or qualification does not exist as an axiom. It exists inherant in the system by which the said offices are voted into their responsible offices.

The responsibility of the legislators is to represent their consistuency. That is it. Their qualifications are only age and citizenhood, as per constitutional requirements. There need be no qualifications upon religious morality of the candidates; because votes determing the constitutency; and the judiciary and other forms act as check-in-ballance to using powers, or passing laws inconsistent with constitutional principles.

Pat Robertson (I use as an example; because I would never personally vote for him); is heavily "Fundamentalist"; and would most likely use his power as a legislature, and make legislative determination by his religious morality. LEgally; he is fully qualified for office; and no one should make the assumption that he is not (as he meets all available criteria, constitutionally, for office as a president, or federal legislature)... Regardless that he would be bent to decisions by his religious views... Such is betwen himself, and his constitutuency; and is not open to disqualification, merely because of his particularly Dominionist religious views (such is tantamount to religious tests for office... which is unconstitutional)...

We have other branches for countering activities by those like Robertson, who would make legisaltive determinations by religious morality alone. None of this disqualified his position.

Supposing religious qualifications, even in absense, for office.... As a form of test; is tantamount to some form of secularist neo-macarthyism... And no better than the "Red-Scare" of the 50's.

The system is designed so that representatives goals is representation of their constitutency. Even if such views are counter, or against the present order. Such is the cost of a "free-society" and a "free-government".

There is no difference in saying one cannot hold office, because they are not christian; and saying one is disqualified; because they think that religion takes precedence over the constitution...

Adherance is handled through the systems of checks in place in the federal institution of government; not by predeterminative qualifications (secular or religious) of the particular people.

the problem i have with the whole 'seperation...' thing is this:

some folks think that the goverment should almost be anti-church. its rediculous but i don't understand why Boy Scouts shouldn't have access to public lands just becuase one or two of their veiws are offence, yet other groups whos ideas are offence to me CAN use them???

Just as the no prayer in school thing. if my son wants to pray in school, then he should be allowed to. just as someone who does not want to pray can look at a picture of Shaq or Harry Potter as a role model/inspirations(not saying those are bad or good, but not who I would personally want MY son to look at for ideas on life, etc).

anyway, as long as the goverment does not enforce rules on churches which prevent them from spreading their word(as long at their ideas do not discriminate or hurt others) then i dont care. Let the different religions compete if they wish. in the end we will find out who was 'right' anyway.

:)


This, I have to agree.... Presently in Northern Virginia; there is controversy going on about censure by the school boards of Fairfax, and several other counties. Any mention of religion (mind you MENTION, not doctrine) makes plays, music, and literature subject to removal from curriculum. Grease was recently barred because a line in the Resturant goes on for 2 blurts, about one person eating a burger during lent; and another saying "I'm glad I am Lutheran"... In addition the Canterbury Tales have been removed; as well as most of Shakespeare's plays... And countless works by Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc....

It's unconstitutional (by the 1st and 14th amendments) removal and sterilization of religion in art.... And my agnostic wife is just as pissed about it; as I am...

I'm a Hightly devout Roman Catholic, when ever i hear someone say the goverment should go X because the Bible says so, i'm able to bring up a passage usualy from the same book(book of the Bible) to reverse it, or i can point out were the translation is wrong. Now not that my faith doesn't affect my politcal choices, being Catholic is the key reason i'm a Leftist. I can explane all my politcal views in both terms of Faith, and Secular terms.

I've grown up my entire life with an Uncle who is a Catholic priest, i have been able to see the church in a way few lay people ever even consider. My entire family has always been more to the left.

Permitting school prayer for those who would wish to participate is not an "endorsement" of religion. Banning, however, is an infringement upon the person's right to practice their religion.
School prayer is permitted in schools. School prayer led by teachers or staff is not.

Wrong and here is why.

First, marriage when dealing with law was between one man and one women. Since the Sodomy laws have changed, marriage can now be assumed to include a man and a man or a women and a women. Thus the meaning of marriage was changed. So the law that said a marriage is between two consenting adults.. meant it was between two consenting adults that were one male and one female.

Do me a favor and cite the court case where that logic is used please?

It would be like Bob Jones winning 100 million in a lottery... and you change your name to Bob Jones and claim the money as yours.

Or lets say a law is made to help people who make under $20,000 a year, and you qualify for free housing. Then the Feds remove 1 zero from all money, and property values are all reduced by removing one zero... thus nothing has changed. However, if that loop hole existed about free housing, that would mean by the letter of "that law" anyone that was making 200,000 a year that is now making 20,000 a year gets free housing. Because the meaning was changed after the law was made.

Right...

This is exactly why States are having to redefine marraige, because Liberals have over time changed mucked up the meaning of the word.

No, the word 'marriage' is not being redefined. Marriage is a civil contract between two people, depending on the laws of the state, this can be between a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple. You do know the reasoning behind the Mass supreme court requiring the state to allow gay marriage, correct?

Do you know how errors are compounded? take a ruler, 12" long mark off 1 mile, 5280 ft. then measure the mile... if your off 1/8" each time, that would be 55 ft you could be off. Now thats not a lot... but lets say your a farmer and you own a sq. mile.. so you mark off your sqaure... and your off by 55 ft... and that land butts up to a subdivision with $300,000 homes sitting on 55 x 120 ft lots. Guess what, that farmer now owns a whole row of homes less the roads thats 40 homes or 12 million bucks plus 40 families that are homeless. That is how precedence your so found of works. You base a decision on a bad decision... which is later the base for another bad decision. Soon, you have no clue on what the original intent of the law was and you destroy families in the process.

The logic is sound, and in fact this is what is happening.. The courts beleive themselves "above" the Constitution.
I'm really getting tired of this. Simply because a court disagrees with you doesn't automatically make them wrong. You have a highly basic and horrid grasp of law in general, and you have a very basic idea of what constitutional law is.

Case law is mearly saving time, instead of having to restate the arguments of a lower court over again. Using caselaw means that you agree with the arguments of the lower court over a constitutional issue (or any issue, constitutional law in this case).

The concept of a wall of separation of Church and State is firmly emeshed in the language of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause, in the original intent of the Founders, and in 200 or so years of Supreme Court caselaw up to the recent Ten Commandment decisions. except in Texas.. where the 10 commandments still stand :)..



And government may not endorse, favor, support, etc. religion. Really? So Paligomy is not against the law?


[INDENT]The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Fair enough, one does not require a law to Put up Christmas decorations in town. A simple vote on how to spend the money for decorations is all that is required. However... on the converse... one "DOES REQUIRE" a law to "PROHIBITE" a City from doing this. That is a no no.

Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. Correct, I am sure you actually read this right? It simply says the State can not force or influence a person against their will... grant, force is usally against ones will... however influence does not have to be against ones will... thus if the will of the people wish to promote Christmas... so long as no law is written to do so... then its up to the people to decide.

No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. Correct, That again would require a law, no person can be punished without a law descibing that punishment.

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. That is correct again. BTW there is no tax levied for the Mayor to go out and have dinner. Yet its not against the law for the City to pay for Dinner. Simply put, its up to the people to control their representitives on how they spend tax. This opinion simply says a tax can not be set up to support relgious activities.. its does not say tax money can not be spent. Thus if a Church were to have a fund raiser for the homeless and the city wished there are many ways it could participate. Provide traffic control... shuttle people... what ever... its up to the city to decide.


Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. This is fairly accurate however it can be misused. But then this is just a mans opinion. Define affiars of a religious organization.

The Massachusetts issue was purely legal:

In decision by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts highest court; the court determined according to Massachusetts Constitution, Article 106 (CVI):

"All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin."

That the state legsilation barring same-sex marriage, violated such equal protection clause provided under the Commonwealth's constitution.

While opponents site this as "Judicial Tyrany"; and "Courts making law"; such assertions are unfounded. The court removed law; it didn't create it; which, according to judicial determination; was in violation of "Higher-law" (that of the state's constitution)... Thus re-asserting the proper supremecy of the State's Constitution; over that of the state's legislative determinations.

While the court did "legalize it"; by the process of removing existing legislative determination on the issue; and requiring the seperate branch (as is the duty of this branch in our Republican form); that of the legislative; to redraft law in accordance with the requirements coded into the State's Constitution. Such "legalizing" was by means of law removal; not creation (the appeal was to the higher law; and re-asserting of it's authority over the lesser legislative laws).

In all cases of law and order; the Constitution of the several lesser republics (the serveral states) and that of the Federal Republic (the United States); all state legislation and federal legislation; may only be made persuant to the appropriate Supreme Law (State and Federal Constitutions). Judiciaries may invalidate legislative determinations (public law) where such stands in opposition to the intends and purposes of the higher law (Constitution(s))... Thus returning adherance, and requirements thereunto; to the supreme law; over that of the lesser.

The Judiciary does not make law.... They enforce and interpret law; bring all that which is lesser, in comformity to the superior.... And in case such as this, bring the lesser legislative laws; into comformity to the higher Constitutional law.... The Courts have the responsiblity to check the power of the LEgislature and Executive; against that of the Constitution...

except in Texas.. where the 10 commandments still stand :)..

As part of a cultural display. Content is key.


Really? So Paligomy is not against the law?

I'm going to assume you mean "Polygamy". The state has a secular reason to ban polygamy (though I disagree with it), and it does not restrict nor endorse a religion (or rather, restrict religion to a point where the reason for banning polygamy is outweighed by that of the first amendment). Ergo, legal.

Fair enough, one does not require a law to Put up Christmas decorations in town. A simple vote on how to spend the money for decorations is all that is required. However... on the converse... one "DOES REQUIRE" a law to "PROHIBITE" a City from doing this. That is a no no.

So no law exists. It is mearly illegal to put up christmas decorations of a certain sort outside of a multicultural display, as that is spending city money to endorse ("support") religion.

Correct, I am sure you actually read this right? It simply says the State can not force or influence a person against their will... grant, force is usally against ones will... however influence does not have to be against ones will... thus if the will of the people wish to promote Christmas... so long as no law is written to do so... then its up to the people to decide.

Except every action of congress, in short, is a law. Remember the 14th amendment. If an action infringes upon the 1st amendment rights of a person, regardless of if it is a law or not (so long as it is a government body), the action is illegal.

That is correct again. BTW there is no tax levied for the Mayor to go out and have dinner. Yet its not against the law for the City to pay for Dinner. Simply put, its up to the people to control their representitives on how they spend tax. This opinion simply says a tax can not be set up to support relgious activities.. its does not say tax money can not be spent. Thus if a Church were to have a fund raiser for the homeless and the city wished there are many ways it could participate. Provide traffic control... shuttle people... what ever... its up to the city to decide.

Which would put up a law. Which is illegal.

This is fairly accurate however it can be misused. But then this is just a mans opinion. Define affiars of a religious organization.
As opposed to your opinion, which is the word of the god-emperor.

except in Texas.. where the 10 commandments still stand :)..

:headbang:

You are much less clever than you think. If you read the recent Ten Commandment decisions, you would know they are firmly rooted in the tradition of separation of Church and State.

In the one case, the display of the Ten Commandments by the county violated the separation of Church and State.

In the other case, the statute donated to the State did not breach the wall of separation.

You really need to do your homework before you spout off.

Really? So Paligomy is not against the law?

I assume you mean polygamy. And you will have to explain how that is even vaguely relevant.

Fair enough, one does not require a law to Put up Christmas decorations in town. A simple vote on how to spend the money for decorations is all that is required. However... on the converse... one "DOES REQUIRE" a law to "PROHIBITE" a City from doing this. That is a no no.

Correct, I am sure you actually read this right? It simply says the State can not force or influence a person against their will... grant, force is usally against ones will... however influence does not have to be against ones will... thus if the will of the people wish to promote Christmas... so long as no law is written to do so... then its up to the people to decide.

Correct, That again would require a law, no person can be punished without a law descibing that punishment.

That is correct again. BTW there is no tax levied for the Mayor to go out and have dinner. Yet its not against the law for the City to pay for Dinner. Simply put, its up to the people to control their representitives on how they spend tax. This opinion simply says a tax can not be set up to support relgious activities.. its does not say tax money can not be spent. Thus if a Church were to have a fund raiser for the homeless and the city wished there are many ways it could participate. Provide traffic control... shuttle people... what ever... its up to the city to decide.

This is fairly accurate however it can be misused. But then this is just a mans opinion. Define affiars of a religious organization.

1. It is not "just a man's opinion." It is a unanimous sentiment of the US Supreme Court that has been upheld for over 50 years. :rolleyes:

2. The rest of your points play semantic games and make inane distinctions between laws, regulations, city council votes, spending, and taxing. When to the government acts -- takes "state action" -- that is what triggers the Constitution. No statute must be passed to trigger the First Amendment. The spending of public funds does require a tax to create such funds. Regardless, the spending of public funds is state action and triggers the First Amendment. A public vote -- whether it is a vote on a "law" or a resolution or an expenditure -- is state action.

3. Think about it. By your definition, none of the Bill of Rights protect any of us against anything other than the official passage of a statute. :headbang:

I assume you mean polygamy. And you will have to explain how that is even vaguely relevant.

Mormons, or rather used to be. Wisconsin v. Yoder and that case upholding a west drug law banning the use of drugs in religious ceremonies, are applicable, I think.


He's making the assertation that some laws can encroach upon religious freedoms, which they can, but only if the state has a clear and compelling interest to limit those freedoms.

ACK! I read through this thread, and I want to clear up some misconceptions about my original post:

I never said that religious people should not be able to run for office. Read my posts on this thread. I won't respond to the people who criticize me for saying that, because I never said it. It's not that hard to understand the distinction I (and Vittos later) drew in my (our) posts. I also resent being called a bigot for daring to say that bigotry based on religion shouldn't be allowed in government. Name calling doesn't help anyone's arguments.

I will, however, respond to Cat-Tribe's post, as some of it is responsive.

Although you may not mean to endorse a flat ban on religious people running from office that is (a) very close to what you said and (b) a practical consequence of the policy you espouse.

I am shocked, shocked that you might be called a bigot for wanting to discriminate against religion. :rolleyes:


You're thinking like a lawyer here, which is understandable, given that you are one.

Thank you. You are also arguing over a legal and philosophical question. Thus, I answered from a legal and philosophical viewpoint.

That's the current legal definition of the term, which I don't agree with. My argument is more theoretical - this is what the separation of Church and State should mean, because that's the only way to guarantee it. Because it's a false separation in which someone can ban gay marriage because it's an abomination against God. Why is that any different than a state church dictating policy? I don't think it is.

I'm glad you admit that your view is not the current definition of the First Amendment.

To the contrary, it directly violates the principals of free expression and freedom of conscience.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

As I said, we should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree.


Exercising your belief means you can profess it and follow its tenets. It doesn't mean you get to impose your beliefs on others. All I have to win is that any conception of separation of church and state other than mine still allows for religious individuals to impose their beliefs on others in order to prove that there's a net increase in ability for free exercise in my world.

So, I can profess my belief, just not in public?

I can profess my belief, unless I run for office?

You are effectively excluding anyone with religious beliefs -- of any kind -- from the public sphere.

That is a nasty form of discrimination.

That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A constitutional amendment saying that anyone of any religion could run for office so long as they separated their religion from their politics would preserve the principle while fixing the myriad problems with the status quo conception of church/state separation.

Pray tell how you would enforce such a rule without entrenching on freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.

So anyone who believed slavery was immoral based on their religion should have been excluded from government?

Anyone who believes in human rights based on religion -- like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Jimmy Carter -- are excluded from public service?

The Declaration of Independence is invalid because it refers to a Creator?

Under your scheme what counts as a "religion" that must be seperate from politics? Does athiesm count? Existentialism?

Except that ones views on politics are an extention of ones personal religious views. No religious tests, means just that; including to the extent of no tests even upon how much they make their legislative decisions by their religious morality.

Such disqualification, or qualification does not exist as an axiom. It exists inherant in the system by which the said offices are voted into their responsible offices.

The responsibility of the legislators is to represent their consistuency. That is it. Their qualifications are only age and citizenhood, as per constitutional requirements. There need be no qualifications upon religious morality of the candidates; because votes determing the constitutency; and the judiciary and other forms act as check-in-ballance to using powers, or passing laws inconsistent with constitutional principles.

I do not deny that the legislator's role is to represent the constituency, nor that the constituency maintains the function of deciding whether the legislator is performing this function. However, I will say that there are implementations in place in our government that protect portions of the citizenry from majority becoming tyrants. The government has designated limits on its abilities, and if a person's belief, any belief, not just religious, prevents them from acting according to the limits placed on the government, then they should not be allowed to hold office.

Religious beliefs are singled out in this situation because the separation of church and state, one of the foremost limits placed on government, is the topic at hand.

Pat Robertson (I use as an example; because I would never personally vote for him); is heavily "Fundamentalist"; and would most likely use his power as a legislature, and make legislative determination by his religious morality. LEgally; he is fully qualified for office; and no one should make the assumption that he is not (as he meets all available criteria, constitutionally, for office as a president, or federal legislature)... Regardless that he would be bent to decisions by his religious views... Such is betwen himself, and his constitutuency; and is not open to disqualification, merely because of his particularly Dominionist religious views (such is tantamount to religious tests for office... which is unconstitutional)...

Once again, it is not the views that he/she holds, but how they affect his/her fulfillment of duties. For example, a racist that cannot abide by the limits placed on government to protect minorities should not be allowed to hold office.

Pat Roberson is a perfect example. It would be nearly impossible for him to support laws that follow the separation of church and state, and for the separation of church and state to be retained, we must protect it from legislators who would refuse to follow it.

I also admit that this is not how the constitution was set up to be handled, it is just my ideas on how it should be. The best way to protect the entire citizenry, is to insure that those who wish to grant power to specific portions of the citizenry can never rise to power themselves.

In any event, for all those who voted yes, you now support gay marriage, contraception, euthanasia, and stem cell research. Congratulations.

(Abortion can be argued against on non-religious terms, so it's still fair game.)

For all those who didn't, it's now time the "American hating liberals" said "Get the fuck out of this country and move to Iran." :p


(And yes, the post is purposefully provoking because I wish to find a fault in my reasoning, if there is one.)

I do not deny that the legislator's role is to represent the constituency, nor that the constituency maintains the function of deciding whether the legislator is performing this function. However, I will say that there are implementations in place in our government that protect portions of the citizenry from majority becoming tyrants. The government has designated limits on its abilities, and if a person's belief, any belief, not just religious, prevents them from acting according to the limits placed on the government, then they should not be allowed to hold office.

Religious beliefs are singled out in this situation because the separation of church and state, one of the foremost limits placed on government, is the topic at hand.



Once again, it is not the views that he/she holds, but how they affect his/her fulfillment of duties. For example, a racist that cannot abide by the limits placed on government to protect minorities should not be allowed to hold office.

Pat Roberson is a perfect example. It would be nearly impossible for him to support laws that follow the separation of church and state, and for the separation of church and state to be retained, we must protect it from legislators who would refuse to follow it.

I also admit that this is not how the constitution was set up to be handled, it is just my ideas on how it should be. The best way to protect the entire citizenry, is to insure that those who wish to grant power to specific portions of the citizenry can never rise to power themselves.


Except, there is no need for disqualification of office (as that is effective censure of ideas).... The protection is afforded by check's and ballances between the three branches; and afforded protections in the constitution.

I might not consider Robertson (to continue the example) my candidate; but I also would not suppose to disqualify him; as long as he was rightly elected.

Minority protection is not afforded through the censure of offices; but through the checks and ballances present between the several branches of the federal and state governments.

The idea of censuring offices; merely because the one rightly elected by the constituency does not adhere to constitutional principles in belief; is in itself an unconstitutional point of view. No where in the Constitution was the government given the power to disqualify candidates based upon religious views (even those views adverse to the US Constitution), nor expressly implied in any amendment.

If Robertson were elected; and acted adverse to the duty he possesses to his constituency; then the constituency will not seek him in re-election.

If he acts as such; but is still in constitutional violation; then other congressmen will oppose; or if in failure of that; the Supreme Court will over-rule unconstitutional law passed in-effect.

I will not endorse any attempt to disqualify representatives merely based upon their individual ideals in opposition to my own; or even the constitution. Such determinations exist only between the representative, and the body which elected him; and no others. And should be between no others...

Problems which arrise are handled through the seperate houses; or the seperate branches; acting in-check to one another.

In any event, for all those who voted yes, you now support gay marriage, contraception, euthanasia, and stem cell research. Congratulations.

(Abortion can be argued against on non-religious terms, so it's still fair game.)

For all those who didn't, it's now time the "American hating liberals" said "Get the fuck out of this country and move to Iran." :p


(And yes, the post is purposefully provoking because I wish to find a fault in my reasoning, if there is one.)

I don't "now" support "Gay-Marriage"; I have been in support of Gay-Marriage as far as General Law for some time.

I've never opposed Contraception.

I've never opposed Euthanasia.

And I've never opposed Stem-Cell research.

In any event, for all those who voted yes, you now support gay marriage, contraception, euthanasia, and stem cell research. Congratulations.

(Abortion can be argued against on non-religious terms, so it's still fair game.)

For all those who didn't, it's now time the "American hating liberals" said "Get the fuck out of this country and move to Iran." :p

(And yes, the post is purposefully provoking because I wish to find a fault in my reasoning, if there is one.)

Although I strongly support all of those things, your reasoning is flawed.

Separation of Church and State does not mean that one cannot base one's opinion on public policy on one's religious views.

Or should Martin Luther King, Jr., and his followers have fucked off to a theocracy?

I applaud your devotion to maintaining the wall of separation, but you breach that wall when you seek to suppress any religious viewpoint.

Except, there is no need for disqualification of office (as that is effective censure of ideas).... The protection is afforded by check's and ballances between the three branches; and afforded protections in the constitution.

I might not consider Robertson (to continue the example) my candidate; but I also would not suppose to disqualify him; as long as he was rightly elected.

Minority protection is not afforded through the censure of offices; but through the checks and ballances present between the several branches of the federal and state governments.

The idea of censuring offices; merely because the one rightly elected by the constituency does not adhere to constitutional principles in belief; is in itself an unconstitutional point of view. No where in the Constitution was the government given the power to disqualify candidates based upon religious views (even those views adverse to the US Constitution), nor expressly implied in any amendment.

If Robertson were elected; and acted adverse to the duty he possesses to his constituency; then the constituency will not seek him in re-election.

If he acts as such; but is still in constitutional violation; then other congressmen will oppose; or if in failure of that; the Supreme Court will over-rule unconstitutional law passed in-effect.

I will not endorse any attempt to disqualify representatives merely based upon their individual ideals in opposition to my own; or even the constitution. Such determinations exist only between the representative, and the body which elected him; and no others. And should be between no others...

Problems which arrise are handled through the seperate houses; or the seperate branches; acting in-check to one another.

What if the checks and balances are usurped by a limited political spectrum and political dominance by a certain idealogical group. It could feasibly only take two or three straight presidential terms with majority in the congress to centralize the government under one ideology.

Separation of Church and State does not mean that one cannot base one's opinion on public policy on one's religious views.

Or should Martin Luther King, Jr., and his followers have fucked off to a theocracy?

I applaud your devotion to maintaining the wall of separation, but you breach that wall when you seek to suppress any religious viewpoint.

So enacting laws that are based solely on religious belief is not a violation of the separation of church and state?

I wonder if a Bible Belt Born-Again (one time Southern Baptist) Veteran Peanut Farmer could ever win a majority vote for President from the group in this thread?

I wonder if a Bible Belt Born-Again (one time Southern Baptist) Veteran Peanut Farmer could ever win a majority vote for President from the group in this thread?

Should we be worried: we appear to agree on this and I raised the same example!?!

So enacting laws that are based solely on religious belief is not a violation of the separation of church and state?

Not necessarily.

Enacting laws with the purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion breaches the wall.

Having a religious belief that supports a secular law does not.

So enacting laws that are based solely on religious belief is not a violation of the separation of church and state?


You mean like having a seven day week?

Should we be worried: we appear to agree on this and I raised the same example!?!

Yes... I'm off to check the mirror, you do the same and we'll se if we're both okay :p

lol

Not necessarily.

Enacting laws with the purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion breaches the wall.

I agree with you on this.

Having a religious belief that supports a secular law does not.

I agree with this statement. Most religions deem murder of any form to be wrong, and therefore due to religious beliefs they support a law that has a secular reasoning. However, my contention is against laws that have no secular basis, laws that have no basis except for traditional religious views.

I personally believe that the wall of separation should extend until the government is totally secular in its policy. Religious views should be totally left out of lawmaking. If not it opens the door to policies that are not respectful to all religions equally, and allows for government to inact laws that are indirectly endorsing a certain religious views.

I personally believe that the wall of separation should extend until the government is totally secular in its policy. Religious views should be totally left out of lawmaking. If not it opens the door to policies that are not respectful to all religions equally, and allows for government to inact laws that are indirectly endorsing a certain religious views.

It sounds like you feel and believe strongly about this. Perhaps even ideological about it, maybe like it's a goal that we should strive for, like its the epitome of perfect governing that it always just out of reach, the objective of a quest...


I propose that it's time we file this type of thinking with the other religionous doctrines that can't be allowed to take over the government either :p

The state should be secular.

This is to preserve equality amongst its subjects with differing religions, to circumvent unnecessary war and bloodshed.

Is it not obvious?

I'm putting it in simple terms because it's a simple matter. Religion has no place in goverment, indeed it is even dangerous and irresponsible in government.

(Although, in my opinion religion has no place in the modern enlightened world, full stop, being a tapestry of lies and manipulation through and through, but, y'know, some people just can't see that..)

It sounds like you feel and believe strongly about this. Perhaps even ideological about it, maybe like it's a goal that we should strive for, like its the epitome of perfect governing that it always just out of reach, the objective of a quest...


I propose that it's time we file this type of thinking with the other religionous doctrines that can't be allowed to take over the government either :p

I do feel strongly about respecting everyone equally. I wouldn't call it a religious belief, but I would definitely call it a moral belief. However, the difference between my views deciding the law making process and government policy is that nobody is discriminated against. If we allow people who cannot respect other religions like they respect their own to make policy, then the government will be able to, and will begin to discriminate against other religions.

You would also make the argument that you should tolerate intolerance as well.

Although I strongly support all of those things, your reasoning is flawed.

Separation of Church and State does not mean that one cannot base one's opinion on public policy on one's religious views.

Or should Martin Luther King, Jr., and his followers have fucked off to a theocracy?

I applaud your devotion to maintaining the wall of separation, but you breach that wall when you seek to suppress any religious viewpoint.

I am not, nor am trying to, suppress religious viewpoints*; I don't think people don't have the right to form personal opinions about public policy from their religious views; I doubt anything but a serious knock to the head and heavy medication will change religious people's minds on various policies.

All I am saying is that such opinions and views are invalid in a public forum that separates church and state, and hence, their opinions are of no value. Unless they can come up with non religious ways of justifying their points of view, their opinions can't be allowed to hold sway in a democracy.

If MLK's views didn't have any logical basis in the real world, and didn't logically extend the outlines of the Declaration of Independence and Constitutional rights for blacks, then yes, I'd tell him to fuck off to a theocracy. Incidentally, this is the same reason why the case for gay marriage is so completely solid, whereas the counter argument is non existent.

*How the fuck am I supposed to correctly grammatically structure that sentence?

What if the checks and balances are usurped by a limited political spectrum and political dominance by a certain idealogical group. It could feasibly only take two or three straight presidential terms with majority in the congress to centralize the government under one ideology.

The cool thing about the U.S. system; is for major changes to that extent to become semi-permanate; is for the Constitution to be amended. Even in the "limited" spectrum the US is set in now; it has been unable to do that. Because it requires alot more than a "limited" spectrum at the federal level. You would need such a spectrum to be limited from the federal all the way down to the localities. Especially when my state (Virginia) is not the only one who puts Amendments up to Public Refferendum (votes) for state ratification. So the system fixes itself in the end (once the power-base of the offending group is lost).

I agree with you on this.



I agree with this statement. Most religions deem murder of any form to be wrong, and therefore due to religious beliefs they support a law that has a secular reasoning. However, my contention is against laws that have no secular basis, laws that have no basis except for traditional religious views.

I personally believe that the wall of separation should extend until the government is totally secular in its policy. Religious views should be totally left out of lawmaking. If not it opens the door to policies that are not respectful to all religions equally, and allows for government to inact laws that are indirectly endorsing a certain religious views.

The problem is... "Secular" and "Religious" are not opposing terms (Secular is the antithesis of Spiritual; not "Religious"). People's "Religious" Views; make up their personal ideologies; and it is those personal ideologies that are represented through the legislative and executive branches. The Congressmen are extentions of the will of the populace; so negating "religion" in the thing, is not "seperation"... It's exclusion of a segment of the population.

The 2nd Clause seperates the powers of the General Government; and that of the several institutional (Church/Religious)Governments of the various religious bodies. It is not intended; or meant to deny the personal beliefs of the individual; or their desired purpose in government. It is a block between the various institutions; not people as individuals.

You would also make the argument that you should tolerate intolerance as well.

Bigots have the right to be bigots, I suppose, but they can't act on any of their ideas... ;)

You would also make the argument that you should tolerate intolerance as well.

That's correct, unless and until you define what the tolerance and intolerance is about, then I agree with what you accuse me of. I advocated for intolerance.

Intolerance for mentally abusing your own child even if it is legal, intolerance for cheating on your spouse, intolerance for buying illicit drugs instead of groceries for your kids, intolerance for ignoring decency laws and copulating in public parks, the list goes on and on for a long, long time. In fact, my list of advocating for intolerance goes for an indefinitely long time.

So yes, I advocate for lots of intolerances, which ones did you have in mind?

Actually, one of the best statements about the role of goverment, church and church/state separation comes from a statement my church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) made in 1835:

SECTION 134
A declaration of belief regarding governments and laws, adopted at a general assembly of the Church, Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835. History of the Church 2:247-49.
1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.
7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.
8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.
9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world's goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.
11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

Of course, mine was the church that was kicked out of New York, Ohio, and Illinois by raging mobs; In Missouri in 1838, the governor (Lilburn W. Boggs) had issued the infamous "Extermination Order" that proclaimed that, if the Mormons didn't leave, citizens of Missouri could kill them all - legally. Also, in Illinois (1844), the governor there (Thomas Ford) said that the Mormons were to be forced from the state. Thus they ended up in Utah.

This is the reason I support the separation of Church and State - my church, and, indeed, my ancestors, experienced the evils of state interference with religion and condonement of persecution.

Of course, mine was the church that was kicked out of New York, Ohio, and Illinois by raging mobs; In Missouri in 1838, the governor (Lilburn W. Boggs) had issued the infamous "Extermination Order" that proclaimed that, if the Mormons didn't leave, citizens of Missouri could kill them all - legally. Also, in Illinois (1844), the governor there (Thomas Ford) said that the Mormons were to be forced from the state. Thus they ended up in Utah.

This is the reason I support the separation of Church and State - my church, and, indeed, my ancestors, experienced the evils of state interference with religion and condonement of persecution.

There are reasons that the followers of Joseph Smith were booted from place to place:

Joseph kept telling his followers of his revelations in which those who opposed Mormonism would be "plucked out." "And the rebellious shall be cut out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out." (Doctrine and Covenants 64: 35-36). And of course, the followers kept telling their non-Mormon neighbors that they better convert or else they’d likely lose their land…

While I’m not defending the various mob's actions, it is certainly understandable that the original old settlers would be upset with the influx of Mormons who claimed they were sent by God to take over the land.
"In Ohio, in accordance with the interpretation of his prophecy/parable, Joseph Smith called for volunteers and collected about 210 'Warriors' and marched to Clay County under arms, but the cholera on the second day after their arrival dispersed them. Then to console the Mormons under this disappointment, Joseph Smith, before he returned from the campaign, prophesied publicly to them that, 'within three years they should march to Jackson County and there should not be a dog to open his mouth against them'..." (The Reed Peck Manuscript, page 3)

Mormon writer Max Parkin observed: "The Camp, however, failed to accomplish its objective of reinstating the distressed Saints and it further aided in festering the sore of unpopular public opinion the Mormons already had in Ohio." (Conflict at Kirtland, 1966, page 129).

Seems to me that the Mormons suffered from a lack of tolerance of their neighbors and simply kept losing the fights they kept picking themselves. They did this repeatedly until they were booted all the way out to Utah, where, finally, they didn’t start out with telling their ne neighbors that they were going to be displace, acting like they were Hebrews entering the land of milk and honey…

I must commend Ph33rdom on his quoting of LDS scripture. Never before have I encountered this anomaly outside of the church.

But the passage from the D&C was taken out of context. If one were to read around verses 35 and 36, one would find that the Lord was speaking of the cleansing of the church and the removal of the "rebellious" within it so that it could be more fully "an ensign to the people":

29 Wherefore, as ye are agents, ye are on the Lord's errand; and whatever ye do according to the will of the Lord is the Lord's business.
30 And he hath set you to provide for his saints in these last days, that they may obtain an inheritance in the land of Zion.
31 And behold, I, the Lord, declare unto you, and my words are sure and shall not fail, that they shall obtain it.
32 But all things must come to pass in their time.
33 Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great.
34 Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days.
35 And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land.
36 For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out.
37 Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations.
38 For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion.
39 And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.
40 And even the bishop, who is a judge, and his counselors, if they are not faithful in their stewardships shall be condemned, and others shall be planted in their stead.
41 For, behold, I say unto you that Zion shall flourish, and the glory of the Lord shall be upon her;
42 And she shall be an ensign unto the people, and there shall come unto her out of every nation under heaven.
43 And the day shall come when the nations of the earth shall tremble because of her, and shall fear because of her terrible ones. The Lord hath spoken it. Amen.


Though I could never convince someone opposed to it, the SAints did not try to displace people living where they moved. They simply tried to establish Zion in Ohio, then Missouri, and Illinois... and people were afraid of them. The economically communitarian nature of the church and its purported angelic origins were often reasons for distrust, and in Missouri, its anti-slavery stance rubbed the locals wrong.

Armed groups of Mormons were only assembled in self-defense.

Anyway, even if they did preach a millennialist doctrine that the wicked would be cast out, they didn't act on it - and merely preaching is hardly a justification for, say, the Extermination Order, the Massacre at Haun's Mill, or the murder of Joseph Smith. Plenty of people nowadays preach destruction of all other religious factions to the point that, if their preaching were considered tantamount to the actions implied (the logic that is used to justify mob actions against the Mormons), more than half the world would justified in wiping them off the face of the earth. That simply isn't done because it's morally incorrect.

And no one, or at least no substantial, let alone permanent, population was in Utah when the church moved there - no one else wanted the desert. Of course, there were the Indians, but the church was on good terms with them.

Me? I'm a practicing Jew, and I have a much stronger stance on church and state than most atheists.

To me, religious institutions are inherently different from the state in that they're justified, in essence, solely by faith. "X is true because I believe it to be" is a logical religious argument, because all religion stems from a leap of faith. Either you feel religious or you don't.

The state, however, is based entirely on rational human analysis. What would be the best way to organize human society? The most common answer is a state. Why? To better humanity. Although people differ radically on what "better" means, they still all agree that it should be the end goal for any state (unless they view human existance as bad, in which case the state system doesn't concern them inasmuch as it allows for the best way to kill all the people). They debate this point using justification based in logic rather than faith. As a result, they can justify policies for reasons other than "I feel that way and feel that God does as well."

Therefore, any policy based on religion voids the rational function of the state. The state loses its ability to be a rational actor, and decisions such as "We should ban cars because I feel that way" become legitimate.

Further, the state should not impose beliefs on any individual unless a clear and logical reason can be provided for doing so. "I feel that way" isn't such a justification.

What's the conclusion to all of this? Anyone whose religious beliefs influence their political decisions should be disqualified from office. That's right, I'll say it again - if your religion at all makes political decisions, than you are not competent to run a nation. I realize how radical this view is, but I feel it's the only way to create a viable church-state separation. Otherwise, a state church is created in all but name when abortion and gay marriage are banned because they're an abomination against God.

*sniff* That was beautiful, just beautiful. I don't think I could have said it any better myself. You sound like a debater to me, because you said that like you're a good one....magnificantly.

The cool thing about the U.S. system; is for major changes to that extent to become semi-permanate; is for the Constitution to be amended. Even in the "limited" spectrum the US is set in now; it has been unable to do that. Because it requires alot more than a "limited" spectrum at the federal level. You would need such a spectrum to be limited from the federal all the way down to the localities. Especially when my state (Virginia) is not the only one who puts Amendments up to Public Refferendum (votes) for state ratification. So the system fixes itself in the end (once the power-base of the offending group is lost).

The legislators do not need to change the constitution to be discriminatory based on religion. All they need is a Supreme Court that interprets that has a similar interpretation of the separation of church and state.

Christianity and Politics go hand and hand. Morality is needed in order for any country to survive. America was founded on Christianity and will always remain so. GOD will see to that. Praise GOD allmighty!

What's the conclusion to all of this? Anyone whose Christian beliefs influence their political decisions should be the only ones qualified for office. That's right, I'll say it again - if you are a Christian, only you are allowed to make political decisions, it's for the best of the whole country. Athiests, Agnostics and other false religions, are not and could never be competent to run a nation. I realize how sensible this view is, and I feel it's the only way to create a viable church/state union. Otherwise, a secularist/humanist and evil, immoral and chaotic state is created in all but name, when abortion and homosexual marriage are accepted because they're an abomination against Satan. A Christian Theocracy is our only hope. Praise be to GOD allmighty! GOD bless my beloved brothers and sisters.

I'm european but i still would like a word here as the U.S. is the most powerful country around and if some tyrant president decides to make a world crusade for christianity, he will prevail. I wouldn't want that to happen, it probably won't, but still.

I think a world power should not connect itself to something which requires faith. Faith is a hazard to group and individual as it compels suspension of reason, critical thinking and common sense. It's ok for a smaller country, like Iran or North Korea, but as the u.s. bears increasing resemblance to an elephant in a china shop it should atleast stay on a rational level.

I'm european but i still would like a word here as the U.S. is the most powerful country around and if some tyrant president decides to make a world crusade for christianity, he will prevail. I wouldn't want that to happen, it probably won't, but still.

I think a world power should not connect itself to something which requires faith. Faith is a hazard to group and individual as it compels suspension of reason, critical thinking and common sense. It's ok for a smaller country, like Iran or North Korea, but as the u.s. bears increasing resemblance to an elephant in a china shop it should atleast stay on a rational level.
What makes it "more ok" for them? I can understand being more worried about our motivation for action but you make it sound like we are to be held to a compleatly different standard then other countries at least for motivation not action (I am not saying there is not more responsibility for our actions that comes with the power we wield) BUT you are not nessisarily questioning our ACTIONS but our choice for governing and motivations ... that hardly falls under the umbrella of responsibility

So anyways... my signature now has a list of everyone who wants to live in a theocracy. If you want to be removed from my list (because you accidentally chose the wrong poll option), just send me a telegram. If not, enjoy the "respect" you get for the opinions you give in any future arguments.

Enjoy the "respect" that we will get when responding...... Ha, yeah right! Nicely worded, Saipea.

So anyways... my signature now has a list of everyone who wants to live in a theocracy. If you want to be removed from my list (because you accidentally chose the wrong poll option), just send me a telegram. If not, enjoy the "respect" you get for the opinions you give in any future arguments.
Will you put me in there just for the sake of irony?

Enjoy the "respect" that we will get when responding...... Ha, yeah right! Nicely worded, Saipea.
Who said we have to respect your opinion? we just have to respect your right to say it

Now did he word ant part of his sig to try to imply emotional overtones against your point of view?

Did he do anything devious like take your quotes out of context?

Those I would understand if he was mis quoting you or trying to set up your viewpoint in a purpously bad light

(I am not saying it is right and it may be an example of baiting on this fourm but I was talking about in general)

Christianity and Politics go hand and hand. Morality is needed in order for any country to survive. America was founded on Christianity and will always remain so. GOD will see to that. Praise GOD allmighty!

America, by which I assume you mean the "United States of America" was founded on liberty; not christianity. While the two were somewhat inter-related; as most of the settlers did come to flee some sort of other persecution. In no way was the United States founded on; or by; a particular Religious Institution. In fact; a bulk of the philosphy used in the formation of this country; was upon that of Locke and Paine; and in general Deistic Englightenment Philosophy.

If the US was founded on any distinct Christian moral principle; it was the principle of Forbearance; a moral distinctive that most Christians have a problem stomaching (and I am Christian, BTW; Reformed, at that; Presbyterian (PCA)). That is; the principle of people as free-agents, who are responsible to no one else but to God.

America, by which I assume you mean the "United States of America" was founded on liberty; not christianity. While the two were somewhat inter-related; as most of the settlers did come to flee some sort of other persecution. In no way was the United States founded on; or by; a particular Religious Institution. In fact; a bulk of the philosphy used in the formation of this country; was upon that of Locke and Paine; and in general Deistic Englightenment Philosophy.

If the US was founded on any distinct Christian moral principle; it was the principle of Forbearance; a moral distinctive that most Christians have a problem stomaching (and I am Christian, BTW; Reformed, at that; Presbyterian (PCA)). That is; the principle of people as free-agents, who are responsible to no one else but to God.
Forbearance huh … going to have to remember that I have never seen the formal name for it

America, by which I assume you mean the "United States of America" was founded on liberty; not christianity. While the two were somewhat inter-related; as most of the settlers did come to flee some sort of other persecution. In no way was the United States founded on; or by; a particular Religious Institution. In fact; a bulk of the philosphy used in the formation of this country; was upon that of Locke and Paine; and in general Deistic Englightenment Philosophy.

If the US was founded on any distinct Christian moral principle; it was the principle of Forbearance; a moral distinctive that most Christians have a problem stomaching (and I am Christian, BTW; Reformed, at that; Presbyterian (PCA)). That is; the principle of people as free-agents, who are responsible to no one else but to God.


James Kennedy is well known and longstanding head of a Presbyterian congregation here in the USA, and he would strongly disagree and oppose your views, as I do as well. Although, I am Catholic. There are millions of others that would disagree and oppose your views as well.

My views remain unchanged. The USA was founded on Christianity, morality and Biblical principles. The USA is a Christian nation! And as long as I live here, I will do everything in my power for it to remain so.

GOD bless!

James Kennedy is well known and longstanding head of a Presbyterian congregation here in the USA, and he would strongly disagree and oppose your views, as I do as well. Although, I am Catholic. There are millions of others that would disagree and oppose your views as well.

My views remain unchanged. The USA was founded on Christianity, morality and Biblical principles. The USA is a Christian nation! And as long as I live here, I will do everything in my power for it to remain so.

GOD bless!

If by biblical principles you mean stuff like the ten comandments they were jewish first. Does that make the USA a Jewish nation? :rolleyes:

If by biblical principles you mean stuff like the ten comandments they were jewish first. Does that make the USA a Jewish nation? :rolleyes:


Yes, I have no problem with that. Jesus is the King of the Jews, but saviour of all. Christians are gentiles, not Jews. I accept and follow GOD's law!

Yes, I have no problem with that. Jesus is the King of the Jews, but saviour of all. Christians are gentiles, not Jews. I accept and follow GOD's law!

Thats great and all but not everyone does. Hence why in a democracy like the USA there is a seperation of Chruch and state. That is why we dont have an official church of america. That is why the ten comandments/beatitudes/etc are not laws. That is why public schools cant make students pray. You can believe what you want and I'll fight tooth and nail to make sure you can but when you start forcing those beliefs on others thats when we part ways.

James Kennedy is well known and longstanding head of a Presbyterian congregation here in the USA, and he would strongly disagree and oppose your views, as I do as well. Although, I am Catholic. There are millions of others that would disagree and oppose your views as well.

My views remain unchanged. The USA was founded on Christianity, morality and Biblical principles. The USA is a Christian nation! And as long as I live here, I will do everything in my power for it to remain so.

GOD bless!

You're Catholic? Me too. You do realize that the Fundys HATE us, consider us heretics, and if (God forbid) they ever take total control, they'll kill us by the truckload, don't you?

The USA wasn't founded as a Christian nation, no matter how the religious revisionist might claim otherwise. The founding fathers were deists and Christions, but built the country as a place where people of any religious belief or NO religious belief may come and live, without fear of persecution. Those that think that their vision of America should be Christian should be ashamed of themselves- they're working to destroy th priciples which their country was built on.

Enjoy the "respect" that we will get when responding...... Ha, yeah right! Nicely worded, Saipea.

I've already reported you for trolling. I find it very hard to believe that you actually value any of the tripe you spout. Methinks you stink of a parody poster or a very bad troll.

I speak only of love, compassion and morality!

If there are people on here that trolls and are spouting hatred, selfishness and disrespect, it would be all those people that have created threads attacking Christians.

I never resort to vulgar terms, yet so many here can't seem to complete a sentance without an offensive or vulgar word in it. They are the trolls, not I.

I have not offended you in any way, I simply replied to your post the way I understood it. If I misinterpreted it, then I'm sorry! I have no problem saying I'm sorry, like so many other self-centered people on here apparently do.

What exactly is the meaning of trolling to you? Where did I offend you? What exactly did you mean by: enjoy the "respect"?

GOD bless!

Yes, I have no problem with that. Jesus is the King of the Jews, but saviour of all. Christians are gentiles, not Jews. I accept and follow GOD's law!
He was talking about the tend comandments which were origionaly and still are a part of the origional pre christian law

I've already reported you for trolling. I find it very hard to believe that you actually value any of the tripe you spout. Methinks you stink of a parody poster or a very bad troll.


And you want to call me a troll? Just take a look at your last comment. But you are entitled to offend others I see. Are you related to Max, in order to have these special privileges?

I suggest you and many others work on your manners and respect for other peoples views and opinions, if you expect any in return. Never attack until attacked is my motto! Then maybe we could all live in a better world, if no one ever attacked. But if anyone ever attacks me, they can be sure that they will be hearing from me. I stand on defese at all times. Sounds fair and simple enough to me. How about you? How about everyone else?

He/she who casts the first stone is a troll. Not the person defending. Go and try to find a thread created by me, that has attacked or spouted hatred against anyone. Guess what? You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

Good old double standards. Attacking Christians is acceptable on this forum, but no one else. I don't think so!

GOD bless!

And you want to call me a troll? Just take a look at your last comment. But you are entitled to offend others I see. Are you related to Max, in order to have these special privileges?

I suggest you and many others work on your manners and respect for other peoples views and opinions, if you expect any in return. Never attack until attacked is my motto! Then maybe we could all live in a better world, if no one ever attacked. But if anyone ever attacks me, they can be sure that they will be hearing from me. I stand on defese at all times. Sounds fair simple enough to me. How about you? How about everyone else?

He/she who casts the first stone is a troll. Not the person defending. Go and try to find a thread created by me, that has attacked or spouted hatred against anyone. Guess what? You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

Good old double standards. Attacking Christians is acceptable on this forum, but no one else. I don't think so!

GOD bless!

Trolling is making inflammitory comments meant to provoke others. I really dont think you are doing it but I guess Sapia does. Generally trolling is basically going something like BUSH IS A MORON, or LIBERALS ARE A BUNCH OF TREE HUGGING HIPPIES. Stuff like that. And people dont really attack christians here its more of a mutual agreeing to disagree thing we've got going.

He was talking about the ten commandments which were originally and still are a part of the original pre Christian law


What?

I as well was speaking of the Ten Commandments. Those are GOD's laws I live by. They apply to Jews and gentiles alike.

Other than that, I have no idea what you are reffering to.

What?

I as well was speaking of the Ten Commandments. Those are GOD's laws I live by. They apply to Jews and gentiles alike.

Other than that, I have no idea what you are reffering to.
If you cant see that following jewish origional principals makes it as "jewish" as it does "christian" which are just jews 2.0 then maybe I should not waste my time

What?

I as well was speaking of the Ten Commandments. Those are GOD's laws I live by. They apply to Jews and gentiles alike.

Other than that, I have no idea what you are reffering to.

That god? The one that wrote those commandments, right? The very same one that commanded the Iraelites to slaughter their enemies including the women, children, and livestock? That one?

Yeah, he's an asshole, that one. Good luck on the worship thing, though... you'll need it.

Trolling is making inflammitory comments meant to provoke others. I really dont think you are doing it but I guess Sapia does. Generally trolling is basically going something like BUSH IS A MORON, or LIBERALS ARE A BUNCH OF TREE HUGGING HIPPIES. Stuff like that. And people dont really attack christians here its more of a mutual agreeing to disagree thing we've got going.


Thanks! We agree on the meaning of trolling. However, there are an abundance of Christian hatred created threads. Would anyone like for me to dig for them? It's a simple task, since there are so many of them. And I for one, will not tolerate anyone offending my Christian faith. I will always defend it, at any cost. Understood?

What is going on here? Unbelievable!

He/she who casts the first stone is a troll. Not the person defending. Go and try to find a thread created by me, that has attacked or spouted hatred against anyone. Guess what? You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

Now I know you're full of shit. Look, just get off of my thread. Even if you are legit, this is for serious conversation; not for purposefully obnoxious comments that are meant to incite off topic answers to your pointless comments.

You want proof of your own hatred? How about your religious based hatred toward non religious people and gays? I'm sure if you had more time to troll this forum you would also try and develope an antisemetic, racist, or sexist outlook, but as it is, you aren't really going to last long on NS.

Oh, and Athena bless!

Chorus:
Give me that old time religion (3x)
And that's good enough for me


We will pray to Aphrodite
Even tho' she's rather flighty
And they say she wears no nightie
And that's good enough for me


We will pray with those Egyptians
Build pyramids to put our crypts in
Cover subways with inscriptions
And that's good enough for me


O-old Odin we will follow
And in fighting we will wallow
Til we wind up in Valhalla
And that's good enough for me


Let me follow dear old Buddha
For there is nobody cuter
He comes in plaster, wood or pewter
And that's good enough for me


We will pray with Zarathustra
Pray just like we useta
I'm a Zarathustra booster
And that's good enough for me


We will pray with those old Druids
They drink fermented fluids
Waltzing naked thru the woo-ids
And that's good enough for me


Hare Krishna gets a laugh on
When he sees me dressed in saffron
With my hair that's only half on
And that's good enough for me


I'll arise at early morning
When the sun gives me the warning
That the solar age is dawning
And that's good enough for me.

Thanks! We agree on the meaning of trolling. However, there are an abundance of Christian hatred created threads. Would anyone like for me to dig for them? It's a simple task, since there are so many of them. And I for one, will not tolerate anyone offending my Christian faith. I will always defend it, at any cost. Understood?

What is going on here? Unbelievable!

Okay lets define what you call christian hate threads. If you mean threads which go OMG CHRISTIANS ARE T3H EVIL11111 then yes I agree. But if your refering to people questioning your faith I think you are seriously mistaken. Just because I merely choose to ask questions about your faith and offer up other explainations I am not hating. I am exploring every option there is What better way is there to understand your beliefs then questioning them and finding the deeper truths beneath?

The government shall neither help nor hinder any and all establishments of faith and belief.

And now our constitution states the same exact thing!

YAY SEL APPA!

Fine. I'll start. Because of the separation of church and state, every single infringement the current administration and its fellow social conservatives has made and attempted to make on civil liberties and civil rights is unconstitutional. They don't even try and make a legitimate argument, the best they can do is "Jesus this" and "Jesus that" which is completely unexceptable, especially for people who are supposed to be leaders of a democracy, not a theocracy, let alone an oligarchy, plutocracy, or kleptocracy.

Thence, the following are seemingly an all go, unless rational (and not religious) arguments surface:

Abortion, contraceptives, gay [marriage] rights, euthanasia, and those obnoxiously whiny yet fair complaints by people who don't like religious monuments.
Regardless of your sex, this post turned me on. :fluffle:

I didn't vote, because I believe that both the religious and not-so-much should be equally protected from outside force initiated by the other group concerning noncoersive and harmless behavior.

If you cant see that following jewish origional principals makes it as "jewish" as it does "christian" which are just jews 2.0 then maybe I should not waste my time



Jews 2.0 What are you talking about?

The Ten Cammandmets are the laws to be followed by all true believers in GOD allmighty. What is so hard to understand?

You either follow them or you don't. If you break one, it's as if you have broken them all. Repentance is a persons redemtion to try again.

GOD help us all!

If you cant see that following jewish origional principals makes it as "jewish" as it does "christian" which are just jews 2.0 then maybe I should not waste my time
Jews 2.0 :p :p :p :p :p


Excellent.

I'm using that one.

Now I know you're full of shit. Look, just get off of my thread. Even if you are legit, this is for serious conversation; not for purposefully obnoxious comments that are meant to incite off topic answers to your pointless comments.

You want proof of your own hatred? How about your religious based hatred toward non religious people and gays? I'm sure if you had more time to troll this forum you would also try and develope an antisemetic, racist, or sexist outlook, but as it is, you aren't really going to last long on NS.

Oh, and Athena bless!

Offending me again I see. You love using vulgar language. So that makes you a troll! Thanks again for proving my point.

Any comments I have ever made or make are after the fact of my faith being attacked, never before. Do your homework, and stop assuming.

And this is serious conversation for me. It looks like you are the one playing games. So I will simply ignore you and all other trolls. You should do the same. I will not tolerate anyone attaking my faith or political views. Anyone can create a thread or post and disagree in a respectful manner, but anyone who crosses that line, will be hearing from me. End of story!

The only pointless comments are yours! See how that works? You attack and I defend. You start it and I end it.

And now you want to threaten me as well. How tolerant of you!

I forgive you though, no matter how many times you or others attack me. Although, you will always have to put up with my defensive responses. If no one wants to hear them, then simply don't post your flamming and offensive threads to begin with. Then we will have no problems in getting along.

Good day and GOD bless!

Okay lets define what you call christian hate threads. If you mean threads which go OMG CHRISTIANS ARE T3H EVIL11111 then yes I agree. But if your refering to people questioning your faith I think you are seriously mistaken. Just because I merely choose to ask questions about your faith and offer up other explainations I am not hating. I am exploring every option there is What better way is there to understand your beliefs then questioning them and finding the deeper truths beneath?


Exactly, I agree with you 100% Now if only everyone else could see it that way, we could avoid this mess!

Offending me again I see. You love using vulgar language. So that makes you a troll! Thanks again for proving my point.
I agree that Saipea should tone it down. But so should you. The condescending attitude is not doing you any good. Either ignore him or dont but dont feed the fire.

Any comments I have ever made or make are after the fact of my faith being attacked, never before. Do your homework, and stop assuming.
Definition of your faith being attacked please. Would it be people questioning your beliefs? Would it be people stating their beliefs in other religions/athiesm/agnostics?

And this is serious conversation for me. It looks like you are the one playing games. So I will simply ignore you and other all trolls. You should do the same. I will not tolerate anyone attaking my faith or political views. Anyone can create a thread or post and disagree in a respectful manner, but anyone who crosses that line, will be hearing from me. End of story!
Okay this is inflammitory. If your going to ignore them fine but dont make a long post about your going to do this. And once again the who gets to decide what is crossing the line? You? Me? I suggest you leave the subject of crossing lines up to the moderators. Its their job to police these forums not yours.

The only pointless comments are yours! See how that works? You attack and I defend. You start it and I end it.
You could end it by ignoring him instead of making another post which will only cause more flaming. Right now you've done whats called flamebaiting. You have made a response which will cause someone to be offended/start flaming you more.

And now you want to threaten me as well. How tolerant of you!
Be the bigger man and just stop. The more condescending you are the more people will not like you or label you.

I forgive you though, no matter how many times you or others attack me. Although, you will always have to put up with my defensive responses. If no one wants to hear them, then simply don't post your flamming and offensive threads to begin with. Then we will have no problems in getting along.

Good day and GOD bless!
Okay the forgive him part isnt necessary. That implies your on the moral high ground here. Your not. Your just as bad as he is right now by posting this response in a condescending matter. Once again you start talking about offensive threads. What may be offensive to you may not be offensive to others. Let the mods do their jobs.

Thanks EA! I will try not to attack back, and try to ignore as many as possible. However, it is very hard at times. I hope to see in the near future, that the Moderaters will pay close attention to any and all offensive threads. I can only hope and pray! I see Saipea deleted his/her last response. Thank you! Now I'll let's all start over and try to get along. I am willing if you are!

Have a wonderful day all and GOD bless!

Simple as this, seperation of church and state = good.
The state should be able to run itself efficiently enough without any church interfering. Likewise, a church should be able to operate without breaking any laws.
This is in theory a simple harmony of church and state.
Every man should be allowed to worship how, where, or whataver they feel like, according to the dictates of their own conscience and at the same time be a law abiding citizen.
If a church can't abide by the country's laws, maybe a pilgrimage is in order, maybe to somewhere more appropriate. That is unless the laws are opressive in every sense of the word, and not just according to one particular sect. If it is agreed by the greater part of the public that laws are opressive and in some way limit religious freedom then it their duty to rise up against it and correct things however possible. Of course a revolution would be a last measure, but things should be easily corrected in a representative form of government.
Theocracy? Maybe someday, but today seperation of church and state is about all we can handle.

*we ban gay marriage* KERBLAM!!! EXPLOSIONS EVERYWHERE!!! PEOPLE BLOWING THEMSELVES UP FOR ALLAH!!!!! WOMEN SPAT UPON AND RAPED EVERY FEW MINUTES!!!! ANARCHY!!! CHAOS!!!!! THE HORROR!!!!!

Sorry Neo Rogolia but since you want to live in a theocracy under your version of Christianity you can't speak about the goverment as the goverment is the church and by your own admission you can't speak in church. Therefore you don't have a voice in goverment either.

Jews 2.0 :p :p :p :p :p


Excellent.

I'm using that one.
Lol I will have to remember I said it as well

I was not trying to be condescending or anything but Christianity is Judaism with some revisions and additions

The faiths aren't the same in the details but making a massive deal of the differences when the portion of the history of the faith in the area we are discussing are practically the same
(meaning we were discussing the OT ... in which while interpretation and some changes they are relativity close)

(BTW I love the irony of Christians looking down on Jew's for sticking with a faith that decided it did not have enough info or belief to follow the messiah and yet can not see that is how a lot of Muslims think almost the exact same thing about Christians rejection of their equivalent)

and yet can not see that is how a lot of Muslims think almost the exact same thing about Christians rejection of their equivalent

There's a big difference. Jesus and Mohammed are two VERY different dudes. Jesus if he existed was pretty chill most of the time and even by the Koran he is considered sinless. Mohammed was batshiat crazy and violent by today's standards. And he married a 6 year old. Bleh.

And don't flame. Every single one of those statements can be supported by text in the Koran.

There is no irony when given the two choices. Wouldn't you rather follow the teachings of the nicer guy?

There's a big difference. Jesus and Mohammed are two VERY different dudes. Jesus if he existed was pretty chill most of the time and even by the Koran he is considered sinless. Mohammed was batshiat crazy and violent by today's standards. And he married a 6 year old. Bleh.

And don't flame. Every single one of those statements can be supported by text in the Koran.

There is no irony when given the two choices. Wouldn't you rather follow the teachings of the nicer guy?
Yes ... and thats why I would be suspect that I was following him because of want not because of truth

Yes ... and thats why I would be suspect that I was following him because of want not because of truth

That's where faith comes in, I guess. Me, if I had to choose I would hope that the ultimate messenger of a supreme deity was the nice guy. It would kinda be a downer for me if it was revealed that Mohammed WAS the TRUE prophet.

P.S. I wasn't using the Don't Flame thing toward you, I'm just used to a bunch of people charging in yelling "OMG racist!!!!111 bigot"

Honestly, I am so totally sick of these religious threads! All they ever accomplish is to allow all the "true believers" of whatever stripe to become offended that anyone would dare question ( "attack" ) their closely held beliefs. And in some cases the "questions" really are attacks. When is it going to occur to any of you that no one is going to change their closely held beliefs just because of something you posted on a discussion group?

I would think that simple fairness would dictate that we respect each other's beliefs, even if ( perhaps especially if! ) we disagree with them. One man's faith is another man's foolishness. At least try to be kind, please.

"Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with.
His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine."
- Askitiki

Honestly, I am so totally sick of these religious threads! All they ever accomplish is to allow all the "true believers" of whatever stripe to become offended that anyone would dare question ( "attack" ) their closely held beliefs. And in some cases the "questions" really are attacks. When is it going to occur to any of you that no one is going to change their closely held beliefs just because of something you posted on a discussion group?

I would think that simple fairness would dictate that we respect each other's beliefs, even if ( perhaps especially if! ) we disagree with them. One man's faith is another man's foolishness. At least try to be kind, please.

"Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with.
His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine."
- Askitiki


While I am all for that in real life I question those faiths because I guess largely their attempts to effect my life directly based on their faith
I am going to question anything that is being used to support modifying my choices and life.

(That and general love for debate)

While I am all for that in real life I question those faiths because I guess largely their attempts to effect my life directly based on their faith
I am going to question anything that is being used to support modifying my choices and life.

(That and general love for debate)


And vice-versa! I question their lack of faith and morals because I guess largely their attempts to affect my life directly based on their lack of faith and morals.

I am going to question anything that is being used to support modifying my choices in life.

And vice-versa! I question their lack of faith and morals because I guess largely their attempts to affect my life directly based on their lack of faith and morals.

I am going to question anything that is being used to support modifying my choices in life.
Oh and who is to say we don't have morals? And unlike a lot of the the hard liners most of us are just trying to win us some freedom so we like you can do as we please unless it harms others

If you were the guys being restricted because of your faith I would be fighting for your side
As is in america christians tend to be pushing their viewpoint on others rather then the other way around

If that ever changes or in the small amount of cases it DOES happen I absolutly fight for your side

All I want to do is live my life how I choose up to the point where I directly interfere with your right to do the same

This is a never ending battle. So how about finding a solution.

Maybe we should split the US down the middle, giving Christstians 25 states, and secularists 25 states. North region for one and South region for the other. That way both have access to the Western and Eastern coast lines. Alaska will be part of the Northern region and Hawaii will be part of the Southern region. I think we would all be much happier. What do you think?

Maybe I should have started a new thread. Sorry! I'm just not used to starting threads, there is enough going on here already.

And vice-versa! I question their lack of faith and morals because I guess largely their attempts to affect my life directly based on their lack of faith and morals.

I am going to question anything that is being used to support modifying my choices in life.

Incorrect. Atheists can be just as moral, if not MORE moral than a religious person.

I'll quote something from a website that tackles the so-called 'science' of ID (another debate) that I like:

One of the most popular creationist attacks upon evolution theory (and science in general) is the moral attack. As the argument goes, science, evolution theory, and atheists are immoral, so they must all be wrong. This is a bizarre and logically indefensible argument; there are a lot of things about nature which are brutal and which may strike us as immoral, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist!


Even if we were to accept the nonsensical argument that a scientific theory can be judged by the morality of its proponents, would the "moral argument" hold water? In order to for it to hold water, one would have to first show that atheists are immoral, and not only have creationists never produced a shred of evidence, but they've never even tried. As far as they're concerned, it's an unquestionable truth and no evidence is required.


In "1984", George Orwell's totalitarian state altered the language and created "NewSpeak" because its leaders understood that if you can control the language, you can control the way people think. Did Orwell invent that idea? Hardly. Any student of the English language can see that this is precisely how religionists have been subtly influencing people's thinking for centuries. The growth of the English language has taken place under the care of evangelical Christians, and it should come as no surprise that it was deliberately designed to glorify religion and vilify rationalism. The word "materialism" refers to the idea that the material universe is all that exists (ie- the atheist viewpoint), but it is also synonymous with greed and selfishness. The word "faith" describes religion, but the word "faithful" describes trustworthiness and loyalty. In other words, the English language itself subtly reinforces the idea that religion is virtuous and atheism is immoral!


The English word "atheism" has a literal meaning, which is simply non-theism. Therefore, it is defined in most dictionaries as the absence of theism, or the refusal to believe in a God or gods. However, the Third Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (copyright 1992,1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company) still retains an older definition which happens to be quite convenient for the fundamentalist hate-mongers:


Atheism
Noun.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.

Did you notice the third definition? According to the American Heritage Dictionary as of 1996, atheism is immorality! What is it about America that breeds Christian fundamentalism? Why should it surprise no one that the "American Heritage" dictionary still shows the ancient 18th century definition of atheism as "immorality"? Whatever the reasons, America is a land of overt hostility towards atheism, and the continued use of the above definition is only a minor symptom. Perhaps the Minnesota Atheists put it best:

"Religionists regularly slander atheists as immoral and it goes far beyond a difference of opinion. Because of our supposed immorality, for which no evidence is ever given, we are barred from admission to organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the VFW and the American Legion. We are insulted publicly by clergy of all faiths, who seem to consider us unworthy to be citizens of the United States. A climate of opinion is created in which the chances of a known atheist being elected to office, no matter how ethical and well qualified, are slim to none."

They aren't exaggerating. In the 2000 federal election, both prospective leaders loudly and repeatedly bragged about their piety, in an obvious attempt to court the religious bigot vote. Newsweek magazine commented that it doesn't matter which religion a candidate belongs to, as long as he is religious. The notion that "religious piety = moral fortitude" is deeply ingrained into the public consciousness, and no one ever stops to consider how hateful its consequences are: if piety is morality, then a lack of piety (ie- atheism) must be immorality! And with that, millions of Americans are instantly slandered as immoral, perverse degenerates who are unfit to hold public office. In fact, the state of Texas is one of several states which has even enshrined this bigoted policy into law: its state constitution bars anyone from public office if he does not acknowledge the "existence of a Supreme Being".


Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever for religionists' bizarre assumption that atheists are immoral, and while it would be considered hateful to make similar attacks upon Jews or Muslims, no one raises an eyebrow at this continued, public mistreatment of atheists. These pages were written with the goal of explaining, in some detail, the following points:


Christians have been systematically rewriting history in order to pretend that Christianity versus Atheism is symbolic of Good versus Evil. We are never allowed to forget evil atheists (eg. Stalin), but evil Christians receive a distinctly different treatment. Their crimes are minimized or forgotten, and their religious affiliations are either concealed or misrepresented as atheism.


You don't need faith in God in order to be moral.


Humanist morality is universal, while Biblical morality is not.


Humanist sexual liberation is not the assault on family values that the fundamentalists seem to think it is.


Humanists are no more likely to commit immoral acts than Christians.

and

Atheists have been, and continue to be the targets of a vicious, tireless smear campaign. For example, after informally questioning my co-workers, I realized to my chagrin that most of them think Adolf Hitler was an atheist! Not one of them realized that Adolf Hitler had a strict Catholic upbringing (of the type that supposedly produces moral, virtuous people), or that he was an altar boy in his youth, or that he once told General Gerhart Engel that "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so". None of them knew that his infamous "Mein Kampf" contains phrases such as this: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (among many, many other things; see my page on Hitler's Religion for more). None of them knew that Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).


None of them knew that he made Christian school prayer mandatory for the 1930's German schoolchildren who grew up to be his dreaded SS, or that he publicly espoused "family values", which in his mind meant the condemnation of sexual "perversions" rather than the promotion of healthy marriages and parenting methods (rather reminiscent of the right-wing fundamentalist position today). None of them knew how much the German Christian Social movement resembled the modern right-wing Christian Fundamentalist movement. None of them knew that Hitler closely followed the anti-Semitic teachings of none other than Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, but this isn't surprising since they didn't know about Martin Luther's extreme anti-Semitism either, even though he wrote a book titled "On Jews and their Lies". Anti-atheists have noted that Hitler had minor disagreements with the Catholic church in Germany (but not with the church in Rome, with which he signed a Concordat in 1933, and which ordered the German church to fall in line), and they have attempted to twist these minor disagreements into a widespread misconception that he was an atheist, when nothing could be further from the truth.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/

There's plenty here, mostly on the deconstruction of creationism, but with essays on morality and ethics as well.

The point being, of course, that religion has no more propensity to make one moral than being an atheist. It boils down to choice. The big kicker, is that Christians need the carrot and the stick of heaven and hell in order to be moral persons, while an atheist does it out of pure free will.

A law proposed that has its inspiration from religious beliefs is not, in and of itself, in violation of a seperation between church and state. If a person believes that a law should be made because "God told him to," that law is not immediately unconstitutional. Let's be clear here.

In terms of my own views on the constitution, I believe the so-called "seperation of church and state" has been widely misconstrued. It can be found nowhere in the body of the constitution, and what reference to limitations on government involvement in religion do exist in the constitution only refer to Congress specifically, and not state legislatures (which existed at the time). Hell, Thomas Jefferson's administration hired Christian missionaries! His words regarding "a wall of seperation," in my mind, have been widely misinterpreted.

James Kennedy is well known and longstanding head of a Presbyterian congregation here in the USA, and he would strongly disagree and oppose your views, as I do as well. Although, I am Catholic. There are millions of others that would disagree and oppose your views as well.

My views remain unchanged. The USA was founded on Christianity, morality and Biblical principles. The USA is a Christian nation! And as long as I live here, I will do everything in my power for it to remain so.

GOD bless!

1. James Kennedy is not a "head" of any congregation. He is a pastor of a PCA congregation; and the issue of Post-Millenial Dominionism is becoming a crux in the PCA; and likely the issue will be addressed soon, since it is particularly political; and a violation of the Book of Church Order. Pastors in Presbyterian churches do not "lead"; the church is headed by the Session (Body of Ruling Elders); the pastor is a servant and employee of the congregation and elders, ordained by the regional presbytery; and elected by the congregation. Who may also remove pastors by force or order through the courts of the Church. The PCA is not particularly political; and opposes the misuse of the church for political means.

2. I could care less how many "oppose" my view. My view is developed from historical fact. I could care less if they disagree with the facts that the United States of America was founded upon Religious Liberty. Beliefs by revisioninsts; who refuse to accept the facts established in history; and who seek their goals through the perpetuation of lies and deceit; contrary to the good order and peace of the Church in its purity. It's not my problem people like yourself do not accept the fact that the United States is not founded as a Christian Nation. (sic. United States Treaty to Tripoli; sic. Virginia Bill of Rights [Art. 1 Sec. 16])...


The Founding Fathers did not create a secular government because they disliked religion. Many were believers themselves. Yet they were well aware of the dangers of church-state union. They had studied and even seen first-hand the difficulties that church-state partnerships spawned in Europe. During the American colonial period, alliances between religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own shores.

Such views held by yourself; and other dominionistic historical revisionists; is opposed by the founding father's themselves. Who understood more clearly the danger that church-state relations create.

Those who hold the Revisionist mentality; are historically ignorant. And I; like Patrick Henry; James Monroe; and John Adams; as other Christian Founders opposed to the rank evil of State-Endorsed religion; and it's violation of liberty it imposes upon the right rullership of the Church under her own offices.

3. Dr. Kennedy is approaching a point of censure for holding to outright heretical views; inscluding "Gospel of the Stars" heresy; his adherance to charismatic doctrines; which are condemned by the Confession.

4. His politic over the General order stands in violation of the Confession as well (Ch. 20:2,4; and Ch. 23) - Standing out of order under Oath 2 and 6 of his convanential office.

He will likely be removed from the Assembly within the nest few years for his apostacy and deceit. And misuse of his position endowed by the Presbytry; either by the same presbytry; or by General Assembly.

Yes, I have no problem with that. Jesus is the King of the Jews, but saviour of all. Christians are gentiles, not Jews. I accept and follow GOD's law!

You appearanly forget Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians)...

I'd expect nothing less from an idiot as yourself. Pawn.

Great to see we got absolutely nowhere. Thank you and GOD bless!

P.S. Dear Tekania it's: I could't care less, and not, I could care less.

Dear Klacktoveetasteen, Morality and Secular/Humanism are total opposites.

Morality is based on the differences between right and wrong, good and bad, just and corrupt, etc.

Humanism is based on there is no right or wrong, etc. It's based on that a person can and should do anything that makes them feel happy.

So, a person is either one or the other. You can't have it both ways, that would be a total contradiction.

GOD bless!

You appearanly forget Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians)...

I'd expect nothing less from an idiot as yourself. Pawn.


Thanks for the flamming. However, you should be careful of such language and insults. You could get yourself reported and banned from this forum.

Have a nice day!

In terms of my own views on the constitution, I believe the so-called "seperation of church and state" has been widely misconstrued. It can be found nowhere in the body of the constitution, and what reference to limitations on government involvement in religion do exist in the constitution only refer to Congress specifically, and not state legislatures (which existed at the time). Hell, Thomas Jefferson's administration hired Christian missionaries! His words regarding "a wall of seperation," in my mind, have been widely misinterpreted.
Ever heard of the 14th Amendment, kid? According to close to 100 years of SCOTUS decisions, the 1st Amendment applies to the states.

Humanism is based on there is no right or wrong, etc. It's based on that a person can and should do anything that makes them feel happy.

Pure unadulterated bullshit. Humanism is the belief that people are basically good. Dictionaries are good. They teach you meanings of words.

This is a never ending battle. So how about finding a solution.

Maybe we should split the US down the middle, giving Christstians 25 states, and secularists 25 states. North region for one and South region for the other. That way both have access to the Western and Eastern coast lines. Alaska will be part of the Northern region and Hawaii will be part of the Southern region. I think we would all be much happier. What do you think?
I don't think it's a good solution. For one thing, the constitution already provides for fdom of religion, so all you would be doing is taking away some right from those who live in the south. For another thing, the southern states are not composed entirely of Christians and separatists, and you would be doing those other south-residents a disservice by forcing them away from their lives and livelihood.

On top of that, I don't see why the Christians even need to own a country. Most Christians I talk to don't seem to think that there is some Biblical commandement to own a pure, moral, Christians-only country. Why should the whims of a small minority of Christians be respected at the expense of all non-Christians in the south?

I don't think the problem which you are attempting to solve really even exists to the extent that you seem to be addressing it as though it does.

A law proposed that has its inspiration from religious beliefs is not, in and of itself, in violation of a seperation between church and state. If a person believes that a law should be made because "God told him to," that law is not immediately unconstitutional. Let's be clear here.

In terms of my own views on the constitution, I believe the so-called "seperation of church and state" has been widely misconstrued. It can be found nowhere in the body of the constitution, and what reference to limitations on government involvement in religion do exist in the constitution only refer to Congress specifically, and not state legislatures (which existed at the time). Thomas Jefferson's administration hired Christian missionaries! His words regarding "a wall of seperation," in my mind, have been widely misinterpreted.


Well stated Baristovia.

Pure unadulterated nonesense. Humanism is the belief that people are basically good. Dictionaries are good. They teach you meanings of words.


Dictionaries are good, I use them all the time. We must not be reading the same dictionary!

I don't think it's a good solution. For one thing, the constitution already provides for freedom of religion, so all you would be doing is taking away some right from those who live in the south. For another thing, the southern states are not composed entirely of Christians and separatists, and you would be doing those other south-residents a disservice by forcing them away from their lives and livelihood.

On top of that, I don't see why the Christians even need to own a country. Most Christians I talk to don't seem to think that there is some Biblical commandement to own a pure, moral, Christians-only country. Why should the whims of a small minority of Christians be respected at the expense of all non-Christians in the south?

I don't think the problem which you are attempting to solve really even exists to the extent that you seem to be addressing it as though it does.


What would be your solution, or would you leave everything as is?

Issues such as homosexual marriage and abortion would never be resolved. Neither side would ever agree to the others views. The laws would constantly try to be changed, depending on which Party is in power. Is that what you want? I don't.

A law proposed that has its inspiration from religious beliefs is not, in and of itself, in violation of a seperation between church and state. If a person believes that a law should be made because "God told him to," that law is not immediately unconstitutional. Let's be clear here.


Actually it depends on how the law is written and what it is meant to acomplish. If one group tries to implement it's "moral" code on another then you have a problem.


In terms of my own views on the constitution, I believe the so-called "seperation of church and state" has been widely misconstrued.

Such is the frequent claim of the Christian. It has to be black or white which the Constitution was not designed to be entirely so.


It can be found nowhere in the body of the constitution,

The entent of the establishment clause was pretty well defined by both Madison and Jefferson.

and what reference to limitations on government involvement in religion do exist in the constitution only refer to Congress specifically, and not state legislatures (which existed at the time).


Psssst read the 14th amendment.


Hell, Thomas Jefferson's administration hired Christian missionaries! His words regarding "a wall of seperation," in my mind, have been widely misinterpreted.

You forgot to mention what the missionairies were for. Never mind the fact that later in life Jefferson might be argued as becoming an athiest. He said some rather nasty things about established Religion. Didn't want a preecher at his death bead and I belive he didn't want any Religious sayings on his tomb.

The interpretation remains as intended. Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion.

Dictionaries are good, I use them all the time. We must not be reading the same dictionary!
The Collected Works of Jerry Falwell, Professional Dick ia not a dictionary. ;)

Somethings are constitutional, if it fits ones views!
Somethings are unconstitutional, if it does not fit ones views!

Laws were made to be followed, if it fits ones views!
Laws were made to be ignored, if it does not fit ones views!

People know what they are talking about, when they agree with you!
People don't know what they are talking about, when they disagree with you!

[The interpretation remains as intended. Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion.[/QUOTE]
Except I must accept the religion of secularism, by your standards. lets not turn secularism into an absolute truth. One is either religous or not, and you cannot expect a religous person to shed their beliefs so they can participate in our democracy.

Somethings are constitutional, if it fits ones views!
Somethings are unconstitutional, if it does not fit ones views!

Laws were made to be followed, if it fits ones views!
Laws were made to be ignored, if it does not fit ones views!

People know what they are talking about, when they agree with you!
People don't know what they are talking about, when they disagree with you!

Problem: The world is not either black or white.

Problem: The world is not either black or white.

It is unless your a relativist.

[The interpretation remains as intended. Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion.
Except I must accept the religion of secularism, by your standards. lets not turn secularism into an absolute truth. One is either religous or not, and you cannot expect a religous person to shed their beliefs so they can participate in our democracy.[/QUOTE]

Reread the statement a few times. You are not expected to give up your beliefs.

To use your own words

One is either Religious or not, and you cannot expect a non-religous person to take a religion so they can participate in our democracy.

It is unless your a relativist.
Wrong. There are philosophies besides Objectivism and Relativism.

It is unless your a relativist.

One man's morality is another man's obscenity.

That is my point. I dont care if you espouse your beliefs, or lack of in public, but if a religous politician does they better back off or be accused establishing a theocracy.

That is my point. I dont care if you espouse your beliefs, or lack of in public, but if a religous politician does they better back off or be accused establishing a theocracy.

Nothing wrong with being religious. When you start creating religious based laws and using your office to promote a religion then yes that is establishing a theocracy.

One man's morality is another man's obscenity.
This is relativism at its finest. perhaps you should make sure you never criticize nazism because, its just one man morality, and who are you to call it obscene.

This is relativism at its finest. perhaps you should make sure you never criticize nazism because, its just one man morality, and who are you to call it obscene.

cough cough godwin cough.

Nothing wrong with being religious. When you start creating religious based laws and using your office to promote a religion then yes that is establishing a theocracy.

But if you create laws based upon suclarist or humanist ideals you are doing the same. There is no difference. My point being that a Religous person has to give up is ideals where as a secularist doesnt.

This is relativism at its finest. perhaps you should make sure you never criticize nazism because, its just one man morality, and who are you to call it obscene.

As was already mentioned there are many philosphies. What you fail to notice is that I haven't judged while you seem to be doing so.

If relativism means that you live your life the way you want as long as you don't hurt other people, then I guess I am one.

Problem is I have to confess having to look up what it was so am I really one?

But if you create laws based upon suclarist or humanist ideals you are doing the same. There is no difference. My point being that a Religous person has to give up is ideals where as a secularist doesnt.

You seem to be into labeling people. Why is that?

Who are the secularist politicians? Who are the humanist Politicians?

The establishment clause says the goverment shall be neutral in the matters of Religion.

So in many ways a secularist is correct. Religion doesn't belong in the classroom. You don't have to pass a religous test to have a job or hold office.

As was already mentioned there are many philosphies. What you fail to notice is that I haven't judged while you seem to be doing so.

If relativism means that you live your life the way you want as long as you don't hurt other people, then I guess I am one.

Problem is I have to confess having to look up what it was so am I really one?

Who decides if a person is hurt or not? Some relativist would say a baby is hurt during an abortion, or that it is harmful to the women, while others disagree. So who is right

cough cough godwin cough.

;)

But if you create laws based upon suclarist or humanist ideals you are doing the same. There is no difference. My point being that a Religous person has to give up is ideals where as a secularist doesnt.

Not really. Religous people dont have to give up ideas they just need to find a different justification for it. Look at gay marriage. Politicians dont say its bad because god says it is. They say it doesnt fit the traditional definition or it will have an adverse effect on families.

You seem to be into labeling people. Why is that?

Who are the secularist politicians? Who are the humanist Politicians?

The establishment clause says the goverment shall be neutral in the matters of Religion.

So in many ways a secularist is correct. Religion doesn't belong in the classroom. You don't have to pass a religous test to have a job or hold office.

I labeled no one. I merely pointed out different opionons. Who said establishment of a state religion required any of the above? Malta was a Catholic nation but it did not force catholcism on people. Individuals were still free to attend protestant churches and be a part of society.

Except I must accept the religion of secularism, by your standards. lets not turn secularism into an absolute truth. One is either religous or not, and you cannot expect a religous person to shed their beliefs so they can participate in our democracy.
The argument that removing religion from government creates a religion of secularity has been considered and rejected by the courts. Multiple times.

An absense of religion is not an endorsement of athiesm.


As I said earlier:

To quote Schempp again and to answer your question: 'It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a "religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of course that 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." Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 314. We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect. In addition, it might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. But the exercises here do not fall into those categories. They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing religion.

I labeled no one. I merely pointed out different opionons. Who said establishment of a state religion required any of the above? Malta was a Catholic nation but it did not force catholcism on people. Individuals were still free to attend protestant churches and be a part of society.

Hmmm I guess that Catholic Protestant thing in Europe was just a simple argument? The inquisition was an attempt to make friends?

Whose religion gets to be the state sponsored? What happens when the dynamics change?

The fastest growing religion in Europe and South America right now is Islam. I guess paying the hell I just blanked on the name but it's a tax for non-muslims would be ok for you?

The argument that removing religion from government creates a religion of secularity has been considered and rejected by the courts. Multiple times.

An absense of religion is not an endorsement of athiesm.


As I said earlier:

I am not talking schools I am talking federal gov. if a politician wishes to create a law against gay marriage they are considered to be pushing religion. At no point did the religous politician force Jesus, allah or whoever on any one.

I am not talking schools I am talking federal gov. if a politician wishes to create a law against gay marriage they are considered to be pushing religion. At no point did the religous politician force Jesus, allah or whoever on any one.
The principle holds. If a law fails the lemon test, then it can be ruled unconstitutional. Laws against gay marriage do not fall under the first amendment. Laws against gay marriage have never been struck down by the first amendment.

Hmmm I guess that Catholic Protestant thing in Europe was just a simple argument? The inquisition was an attempt to make friends?

Whose religion gets to be the state sponsored? What happens when the dynamics change?

The fastest growing religion in Europe and South America right now is Islam. I guess paying the hell I just blanked on the name but it's a tax for non-muslims would be ok for you?

And why do you think Islam is growing so fast? Most Christians are secular. Their religion is second to their politics. disenfranchised people see Islam as a way to fight against secular society which they deem to be obscene and degenerate.