NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this has been driven into the ground *gets flame repelant ready* read this though i found it interesting and thought i'd share
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

Yaaaaaawn.

As you say, this horse has been beaten to death and back already.

Yes, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in a letter to some Methodist pastor.

Yadda yadda.

That article is way biased though, so I'm going to set some things straight.

Separation of church and state does not mean separation of religion and state. Separation of church and state just means that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion," aka the Establishment Clause (this is what constitutionalists call the so-called separation of church and state).

It doesn't mean that religious values have no role in government. It just means that Congress can't establish a state religion or prefer a religion over the others. Religious values have always played a role in government, and that's how the Founding Fathers envisioned it.

So clearly, nowhere does the United States Constitution mandate strict secularism.

For the last time, church and state, any church and any state, should be seperate.

It doesn't mean that religious values have no role in government. It just means that Congress can't establish a state religion or prefer a religion over the others. Religious values have always played a role in government, and that's how the Founding Fathers envisioned it.

So clearly, nowhere does the United States Constitution mandate strict secularism.

De facto it does, if one follows your interpretation. It means the government needs to determine cases on some other basis than the rules prescribed by religion, since religions differ. What one religion considers perfectly acceptable is an abomination in another.

Since congress is not allowed to play favourites, it must find another way to weigh merits than reading holy books.

Religious values have always played a role in government, and that's how the Founding Fathers envisioned it.

So clearly, nowhere does the United States Constitution mandate strict secularism.
Odd, you'd think that if they envisioned religious values playing a part in the government, they would have mentioned it. They seemed to have skipped that part as the only mention of it in the government was the part where Congress can't use religion.

Hmm...

I might observe that the framers of the Constitution and founders of our nation considered this a Natural right no man, or collection of men, is entilted to take away. Should one so endeavor to establish dominion over my conscience, and should I exhaust all other resonable options, I'm entitled to kill all those who interfer with that right. So that even in the event that people were able to get a Constitutional amendment passed, I'd still be acting in the best American traditions if I shot them in the face. And in a away, that's a comforting thought.

It doesn't mean that religious values have no role in government. It just means that Congress can't establish a state religion or prefer a religion over the others. Religious values have always played a role in government, and that's how the Founding Fathers envisioned it.

What kind of religious values do you have in mind? Consciously including any religious values in government inevitably favours some religions more than others, which violates this rule of yours.

Odd, you'd think that if they envisioned religious values playing a part in the government, they would have mentioned it. They seemed to have skipped that part as the only mention of it in the government was the part where Congress can't use religion.

Hmm...How about that part in the Declaration of Independence where it says that man is endowed by his creator of certain inalienable rights? Granted it's not the Constitution but the same people wrote it.

De facto it does, if one follows your interpretation. It means the government needs to determine cases on some other basis than the rules prescribed by religion, since religions differ. What one religion considers perfectly acceptable is an abomination in another.

Since congress is not allowed to play favourites, it must find another way to weigh merits than reading holy books.That's like saying that forbidding a one-party state means there mustn't be any partisan opinions in government because when there's a majority party, it's favoured over the others.

:headbang:

*thinks this is good time and place to post thoughtful article*

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,395120,00.html
....Of course, Continental Europe is different from the US. What Americans see as naturally paired -- individualism with tradition, Christian fundamentalism with open markets -- have been separated in Europe since the Thirty Years War. In America, the individual came before the state, in theory and in chronology. In Europe after the Thirty Years War, for want of a strong middle class, rebuilding society was a matter for princes and the royal elite.

In American tradition, the only power looking out for everyone is an individual God. In Europe, the state is the basis and goal of every social structure. Europe wasn't built by land-hungry colonists plunging into an unknown world, but by French kings and their Habsburg cousins, trying to forge a stable society from the ashes of the (bitterly religious) Thirty Years War. The still-virulent mercantilism of leaders like French President Jacques Chirac and French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has its roots in this past.

German princes in Hessen and Prussia repopulated the land with Protestants fleeing religious persecution. Frederick the Great dried up the swampy Oderbruch region near Poland and turned it into farmland. Such public works helped revive Europe after the fury of religious intolerance had laid the continent to waste, and a personal -- Protestant -- God was consciously linked to the state in order to shore up a new social contract. Conservatives at first resisted the state's taking responsibility for a weak society. Later, though, they defended the state's new authority against the anarchy of individualism -- and served the state even when it didn't quite meet their conceptions of what a state should be....

Originally Posted by The Alma Mater
De facto it does, if one follows your interpretation. It means the government needs to determine cases on some other basis than the rules prescribed by religion, since religions differ. What one religion considers perfectly acceptable is an abomination in another.

Since congress is not allowed to play favourites, it must find another way to weigh merits than reading holy books.
Originally Posted by Venus Mount
That's like saying that forbidding a one-party state means there mustn't be any partisan opinions in government because when there's a majority party, it's favoured over the others.

UTTER RUBBISH VM

How about that part in the Declaration of Independence where it says that man is endowed by his creator of certain inalienable rights? Granted it's not the Constitution but the same people wrote it.
Well, gee, if because the same people wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution, I guess that letter of Jefferson's is back in the evidence pile, because the same man wrote both.

But, either way (and ignoring that the Declaration says creator, not God), the Decleration is NOT the Constitution. The Declaration has nothing to do with American laws, the Constitution does and THAT document makes no mention. In fact, everytime something mentioning God or Christianity was asked to be included when the convention was meeting, it was voted down...

Very strange for a government that you claim was supposed to include religion.

Blame Bush. If he had written what he meant and meant what he had written when he wrote the Constitution we wouldn't be in this mess. It is all his fault. :rolleyes:

In my country almost all primary schools are state-funded. Almost all of them are Catholic as well. With the increase in Muslims living here they might start pressuring the government to fund Muslim schools. I think that the best way to avoid this is to separate education from religion. That way, the government doesn't have to get tangled up into funding every religion.

Blame Bush. If he had written what he meant and meant what he had written when he wrote the Constitution we wouldn't be in this mess. It is all his fault. :rolleyes:
Why does someone always have to bring Bush into every damn topic?

For the last time, church and state, any church and any state, should be seperate.
What if there is no government left to rule a country after a war? Shouldn't the church take over?

What if there is no government left to rule a country after a war? Shouldn't the church take over?

THE church? If there were only one, this wouldn't be an issue. There are many differing churches, however, with many differing beliefs and codes. Which one would you have take over? How about the church of the country that beat yours in the war? Would that be fair?

If the government were to fail, it would be much better to reestablish it than to scrap it in favor of a theocracy.

So clearly, nowhere does the United States Constitution mandate strict secularism.

Right, let's check how you react if an occultist ever takes power in the US, shall we?

That's like saying that forbidding a one-party state means there mustn't be any partisan opinions in government because when there's a majority party, it's favoured over the others.

:headbang:

Yeeeeah, only you're utterly wrong.

Parties base themselves on logic and on empirical evidence. Religion doesn't.

There, your point is debunked. Also, the fact that the forefathers had an idea of "creator" should have no bearing in the Constitution. Or that would forbid an atheist from being president? For crying out loud, no, the state should not, as the more religious types seem to want, be like pre-war Afghanistan. PERIOD.

Yaaaaaawn.

As you say, this horse has been beaten to death and back already.

Yes, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in a letter to some Methodist pastor.

Yadda yadda.

That article is way biased though, so I'm going to set some things straight.

Separation of church and state does not mean separation of religion and state. Separation of church and state just means that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion," aka the Establishment Clause (this is what constitutionalists call the so-called separation of church and state).

It doesn't mean that religious values have no role in government. It just means that Congress can't establish a state religion or prefer a religion over the others. Religious values have always played a role in government, and that's how the Founding Fathers envisioned it.

So clearly, nowhere does the United States Constitution mandate strict secularism.

Either you are burning a strawman or you are wrong. You are just vague enough to be unclear as to what fallacies you are committing.

The Constitution is itself strictly secular. It creates a strict secular government. That obviously does not mean the people cannot be religious. To the contrary, the point is that the people may be religious, but the government may not.

If you disagree, you have some serious constitutional homework to do.

Either you are burning a strawman or you are wrong. You are just vague enough to be unclear as to what fallacies you are committing.

The Constitution is itself strictly secular. It creates a strict secular government. That obviously does not mean the people cannot be religious. To the contrary, the point is that the people may be religious, but the government may not.

If you disagree, you have some serious constitutional homework to do.
I'd respectfully disagree. The Constitution permits displays recognizing religion and throwaway terms ("In God We Trust", etc) that cause no real harm and have no real chance of creating a hostile environment against a religion.

(The oral agruments in McCreary v. ACLU are helpful here)

I'd respectfully disagree. The Constitution permits displays recognizing religion and throwaway terms ("In God We Trust", etc) that cause no real harm and have no real chance of creating a hostile environment against a religion.

(The oral agruments in McCreary v. ACLU are helpful here)

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Certainly the Constitution is secular and creates only a secular state.

There is no formal exception for "displays recognizing religion and throwaway terms." Some individuals cases have been fought not to constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Government cannot prefer any religion over another or prefer religion over nonreligion.

Yaaaaaawn.

*snip*
That article is way biased though, so I'm going to set some things straight.

Separation of church and state does not mean separation of religion and state. Separation of church and state just means that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion," aka the Establishment Clause (this is what constitutionalists call the so-called separation of church and state).


No this is not what it means. No Religious test is required. The goverment will be Religious neutral.


It doesn't mean that religious values have no role in government.

Actually it does in that no Religious test is required.


It just means that Congress can't establish a state religion or prefer a religion over the others. Religious values have always played a role in government, and that's how the Founding Fathers envisioned it.

So clearly, nowhere does the United States Constitution mandate strict secularism.

No that is not what the FF envisioned. They remembered the Religious wars of Europe and they didn't want here.

You have Freedom of Religon and Freedom from Religion.

That is what the FF envisioned.

I'd respectfully disagree. The Constitution permits displays recognizing religion and throwaway terms ("In God We Trust", etc) that cause no real harm and have no real chance of creating a hostile environment against a religion.

(The oral agruments in McCreary v. ACLU are helpful here)

Maybe so (though I can only imagine the Hell that would be raised by the right if the Chaostar appeared in a bill), but it still doesn't allow for measures that MATTER being taken based on a religion.

How about that part in the Declaration of Independence where it says that man is endowed by his creator of certain inalienable rights? Granted it's not the Constitution but the same people wrote it.

Actually it says

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..."

A creator means different things to different people. If it was supposed to be the Christian God it would have been the Creator.

Now you also overlook

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,"

So what were they envison? We all be Celtic Druids?

How about that part in the Declaration of Independence where it says that man is endowed by his creator of certain inalienable rights? Granted it's not the Constitution but the same people wrote it.

Oh and just in case you don't see my sig.

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


So what was he envisioning?

I'd respectfully disagree. The Constitution permits displays recognizing religion and throwaway terms ("In God We Trust", etc) that cause no real harm and have no real chance of creating a hostile environment against a religion.

(The oral agruments in McCreary v. ACLU are helpful here)

Well? The Consitution never clearly allowed that is it was used and then stopped several times.

It only become official under Teddy. He was completely against it as he felt it was disgusting to associate God with Money.

But he half-hearted relented as the polls were in favor of it.

Separation of church and state does not mean separation of religion and state.Well... Yes, it does.

Since this appears to be a discussion of constitutional interpretation, the appropriate guidebook should be Supreme Court doctrine. Now, as usual, the Supreme Court has rarely been consistent on the matter. Nevertheless, it is significant that the "wall of separation" has crept its way into their decisions, where the Court has affirmed that it must be kept "high" and "impregnable." (Of course, they introduced this language in a case in which they upheld a law providing state-funded busing to private schools...)

Separation of church and state just means that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion," aka the Establishment Clause (this is what constitutionalists call the so-called separation of church and state).Yep. But it would be disingenuous to claim that this "means" one thing, such as your claim that it merely implies that Congress (and now the states, by way of Amendment Fourteen) cannot prefer one religion over others. Non-preferentialism (or accomodationism, which usually amounts to the same thing) is one, relatively recent, interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Neutrality is another, older, tradition: namely, that government can neither help nor hinder religion at all. The wall of separation is another.

Which one is right? Well, our courts haven't been particularly helpful in the matter, but neutrality seems to be the general trend.

It doesn't mean that religious values have no role in government.Again, debatable. It is interesting to note that when the Court upheld the prayers that begin legislative sessions (as well as those of the Court itself), they felt compelled to argue that these practices were so old, and so ubiquitous, that they are no longer "religious" at all; rather, they are merely "traditions"... or, at the most, what O'Connor called "secular deism." Obviously, the Court felt that they could not uphold these practices if they admitted that they are religious.

Sometimes its contradictions are more revealing than its pure doctrines.

It just means that Congress can't establish a state religion or prefer a religion over the others.Maybe, but how do you interpret "establish a state religion"? The Court has struck non-denominational school prayers, invitations to clergy to teach optional classes in public schools, and even state laws giving workers the right to demand a day off on their religion's Sabbath (whichever day their religion happens to claim); they have even struck down the practice of "silent meditation" in public schools because the "purpose" was to show a preference for "religious values." (In other words, atheist or non-praying students were made to feel that religious values were "preferred" by school administrators.)

Of course, the Court has also made decisions that contradict these. The point is that it is disingenuous to claim that any of us "knows" precisely what the Establishment Clause "means" when the case law is so mixed. Clearly it does not simply and purely mean that the government must practice non-preferentialism, since many perfectly non-preferential statutes and policies have been struck down.

How about that part in the Declaration of Independence where it says that man is endowed by his creator of certain inalienable rights? Granted it's not the Constitution but the same people wrote it.As a technical point, it was not. The primary author of the Declaration was Thomas Jefferson, who was not present for the Constitutional Convention.

More to the point, the case law clearly indicates that for legal purposes we consider these references to "God" or a "Creator" as "traditional" or "ceremonial" utterances that are, in the meaning of the Establishment Clause, devoid of religious content.

This may be a cheap way to "save" these things from the Establishment Clause... but that very attempt at a "save" is a good indicator of what the meaning of the Clause must be. Had the Court admitted that these statements are religious in nature, they would have been forced to decide against these common government practices.

I'd respectfully disagree. The Constitution permits displays recognizing religion and throwaway terms ("In God We Trust", etc) that cause no real harm and have no real chance of creating a hostile environment against a religion.

(The oral agruments in McCreary v. ACLU are helpful here)

In both cases, such displays and (as you say) "throwaway terms" are allowable in the Court's doctrine precisely insofar as they are so ubiquitous and so old that they have bled through the wall separating "religion" and "tradition."

In McCreary, in which the Court struck three public displays of the Decalogue, the decision was premised on the obvious purpose of the displays (as opposed to the effect), which was to support religion. In Van Orden v. Perry they allowed a similar display in a public park when they were convinced that it served a primarily historical purpose.

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"
-- James MadisonIndeed, the disestablishment arguments run both ways. The Founders, as well as our more astute judges and politicians since, argued that religion exerts a corrupting influence on government and that government exerts a destructive force when it gets involved in the business of religion.

Keeping them separate was held to be better... for both.

Indeed, the disestablishment arguments run both ways. The Founders, as well as our more astute judges and politicians since, argued that religion exerts a corrupting influence on government and that government exerts a destructive force when it gets involved in the business of religion.

Keeping them separate was held to be better... for both.

Exactly. It was a common belief among the Founders (not just Jefferson and Madison) that both church and state benefited from their separation.

And, although the Supreme Court picked up on Jefferson's particular use of "wall of separation of Church and State," similar phraseology was used by many Founders -- particularly James Madison.

Further, the Supeme Court adopted Jefferson's phrase far earlier than most assume. 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 [First] amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see 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.'

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Certainly the Constitution is secular and creates only a secular state.

There is no formal exception for "displays recognizing religion and throwaway terms." Some individuals cases have been fought not to constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Government cannot prefer any religion over another or prefer religion over nonreligion.
And yet allows for certain amounts of legislative discretion and terms such as "God Save This Honorable Court" and "In God We Trust", as well as legislative prayer to start a session.

Yes, I understand the difference, I'm just pointing out for our other readers not so well versed in constitutional law that there are some exceptions to the general rule of no entanglement or nonsecular purposes.

And yet allows for certain amounts of legislative discretion and terms such as "God Save This Honorable Court" and "In God We Trust", as well as legislative prayer to start a session.

The Court has not always been 100% consistent in enforcing the Establishment Clause. Does that make it meaningless?

Your examples are actually mostly untested, because they are considered too trivial and/or of more historical than religious significance.

The Court has not always been 100% consistent in enforcing the Establishment Clause. Does that make it meaningless?

Your examples are actually mostly untested, because they are considered too trivial and/or of more historical than religious significance.
I never said that it did. Don't be so defensive Cat Tribe, it's really unbecoming.

Mostly untested by common consent of the courts. Again, if you listened to the oral arguments (helpful), there is little debate that certain actions that may be considered religious and be constitutionally permitted.

I for one don't believe in separation of church and state; I believe in abolition of church and state.

I never said that it did. Don't be so defensive Cat Tribe, it's really unbecoming.

Mostly untested by common consent of the courts. Again, if you listened to the oral arguments (helpful), there is little debate that certain actions that may be considered religious and be constitutionally permitted.

Oral arguments are not a particularly useful source of constitutional law.

Even if the parties agree on a point, it does not mean the Court does.

Even when members of the Court speak, they are not necessarily stating their actual opinion.

I've read the oral arguments in question, and I'll stick to the published caselaw, thank you very much.

Oral arguments are not a particularly useful source of constitutional law.

Even if the parties agree on a point, it does not mean the Court does.

Even when members of the Court speak, they are not necessarily stating their actual opinion.

I've read the oral arguments in question, and I'll stick to the published caselaw, thank you very much.
Of course, when the court cites it's own decisions to make a point that certain activities are legal, and specifically mentions certain actions of the court recognizing religions as constitution, I'm likely to believe that they are a helpful insight into the current standing of things.

Unquestionably, actions that recognize religion are constitutional, as are actions such as prayers and slogans that cause no real harm/create no real entanglement between church and state. The wall isn't as absolute as you've suggested, and I'm just helping to clarify this for others.

As I have said in many of these threads, Even if the constitution doesn't separate church and state, Jesus did. It is unChristian to try to inject religion into the government. A true Christian would know enough about their own religion to never argue that the government should promote or in any way use religion.

As I have said in many of these threads, Even if the constitution doesn't separate church and state, Jesus did. It is unChristian to try to inject religion into the government. A true Christian would know enough about their own religion to never argue that the government should promote or in any way use religion.
I'm just taking this from memory, but: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto the Lord that which belongs to the Lord."

I've always thought it was good advice for all religions. But if we are going to follow this rule, we have to acknowledge that religious life and secular life are two different things. Some people seem to have a problem with that. I think the writers of the Constitution realized that some people can't do that.

(It was mostly written by John Adams, wasn't it?)

What kind of religious values do you have in mind? Consciously including any religious values in government inevitably favours some religions more than others, which violates this rule of yours.

The 1st does not bar religion, it bars the establishment of religion by the state (the formation of state churches)... Totally different concepts... The establishment clause itself can be seen as a point of religious value, its reiteration elsewhere is sometimes highlighted with the term "Christian forbearance" as a value... The 1st amendment is to restrict the power of the state from trampling the rights of the people, no more than that... It does not restrict the rights of the people from entertaining their own religious values.

The 1st does not bar religion, it bars the establishment of religion by the state (the formation of state churches)... Totally different concepts... The establishment clause itself can be seen as a point of religious value, its reiteration elsewhere is sometimes highlighted with the term "Christian forbearance" as a value... The 1st amendment is to restrict the power of the state from trampling the rights of the people, no more than that... It does not restrict the rights of the people from entertaining their own religious values.

Yes but... what does that have to do with using religious values in government ?

Yes but... what does that have to do with using religious values in government ?

Exactly. ANY allowance of religion on government property, or by government agents acting in their official capacity, (be it posting the ten commandments or In God We Trust on money), establishes it as prefered- as it is recognised and allowed to enter said government. A Christmas tree on the White House lawn, easter egg hunts in a courthouse- all of those acts are a de facto endorsement of Christianity by the government. Regardless of whether the founding fathers were puritains or not, (except my boy Tomas Paine!), and wether they intended this to be a "Christian nation", the Bill of Rights forbids such an establishment. This is just one of many cases where the govenment is allowed to act against the constitution by the tyrrany of the Christian majority.

I for one don't believe in separation of church and state; I believe in abolition of church and state.
So does that mean you want the church involved directly in the government?
If so, then God save us all.
Government/Judicial Stuff= Legality
Church/Religion=Morality
The government is not for dealling with morality. Morality is a subjective and personal thing and is different from one individual to another.
Seperation of church and state ensures my GOD GIVEN right to decide on my own moral dillemas.
*edit* If not, then we agree. :D

So does that mean you want the church involved directly in the government?
If so, then God save us all.
Government/Judicial Stuff= Legality
Church/Religion=Morality
The government is not for dealling with morality. Morality is a subjective and personal thing and is different from one individual to another.
Seperation of church and state ensures my GOD GIVEN right to decide on my own moral dillemas.
Umm... I think the poster means they should both be abolished.

I know this has been driven into the ground *gets flame repelant ready* read this though i found it interesting and thought i'd share
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm
JESUS SAVES!!!!!!!!!!

Umm... I think the poster means they should both be abolished.
I was wondering. Thanks! :)

Religion has no place in the government. The government has no place in the religion. The president has no more right to dictate to you who you worship than your priest/imam/whatever-you-call-the-funny-man-in-the-dress has the fight to dictate how the nation is run. I've nothin against religion. Think it's a fascinating subject and it certainly does help some people. However religion has this bad habit, when given power, of trying to end all resistance to it. No longer do things like turn the other cheek, and thou shalt not kill apply.

It seems endemic to religion, perhaps it's human nature rather than divine will.

Religion has no place in the government. The government has no place in the religion. The president has no more right to dictate to you who you worship than your priest/imam/whatever-you-call-the-funny-man-in-the-dress has the fight to dictate how the nation is run. I've nothin against religion. Think it's a fascinating subject and it certainly does help some people. However religion has this bad habit, when given power, of trying to end all resistance to it. No longer do things like turn the other cheek, and thou shalt not kill apply.

It seems endemic to religion, perhaps it's human nature rather than divine will.

Actually, I believe that the government has a (VERY SMALL) place in religion. They should prohibit things like human sacrifice.

JESUS SAVES!!!!!!!!!!

But Gretzky rebounds and scoooooorrrresss!!!!!!!


(*cheers*)

Some stupid SOB wants to die for his god, that's his right. Long as the sacrafice is willin.

Some stupid SOB wants to die for his god, that's his right. Long as the sacrafice is willin.

Well, OK, but it better be private and decent.

Some stupid SOB wants to die for his god, that's his right. Long as the sacrafice is willin.

Agreed - though I still think the government should get involved by setting an age of consent. We do not wish "willing" babies to be sacrificed on the rock, or "willing" 9 year olds be married to 50 year old men.

There are afterall limits to all things, including freedom, less it become anarchy.

What if there is no government left to rule a country after a war? Shouldn't the church take over?

Uh, no. In fact, HELL no. That's the -last- thing that should happen. Good lord.

And -which- church would take over? Exactly. Dee-dee-dee.

As a side note, although he doesn't use the precise terms of "seperation of church and state, an early reference to the principle can be found here:


It is not my business to inquire here into the original of the power or dignity of the clergy. This only I say, that whencesoever their authority has sprung, since it is ecclesiastical, it ought to be confined within the bounds of the church, nor can it in any manner be extended to civil affairs; because the church itself is a thing absolutely seperate and dsitinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on both sides are fixed and immoveable. He jumbles heaven and earth together, the things most remoted and opposite, who mixes these societies, which are, in their original, end, business, and in every thing, perfectly distinct, and infinitely different from each other.

As I don't think people can honestly call Locke a secular humanist, and I shudder to think at the foolhardiness required to say that Locke had nothing to do with the development of the Constitution, I think that this is a good synopsis of what the Framers had in mind.

Exactly. ANY allowance of religion on government property, or by government agents acting in their official capacity, (be it posting the ten commandments or In God We Trust on money), establishes it as prefered- as it is recognised and allowed to enter said government. A Christmas tree on the White House lawn, easter egg hunts in a courthouse- all of those acts are a de facto endorsement of Christianity by the government. Regardless of whether the founding fathers were puritains or not, (except my boy Tomas Paine!), and wether they intended this to be a "Christian nation", the Bill of Rights forbids such an establishment. This is just one of many cases where the govenment is allowed to act against the constitution by the tyrrany of the Christian majority.

Actually, this is where I disagree with you, and where the founders would disagree with you... Public officials (such as the president, or a congressman) exercizing their particular religion is not a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause, which would include the President of the US putting a Christmas tree up on the property of the White House... Now, if legislation were passed requiring the erection of such on public properties, that would be a violation of the establishment clause.

Actually, this is where I disagree with you, and where the founders would disagree with you... Public officials (such as the president, or a congressman) exercizing their particular religion is not a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause, which would include the President of the US putting a Christmas tree up on the property of the White House... Now, if legislation were passed requiring the erection of such on public properties, that would be a violation of the establishment clause.

Ha, you said erection.

[/childishness]

Some stupid SOB wants to die for his god, that's his right. Long as the sacrafice is willin.

And as long as he's not sacrificing unwilling bystanders in the process.

But Gretzky rebounds and scoooooorrrresss!!!!!!!


(*cheers*)
I got a chuckle out of that.

:)

JESUS SAVES!!!!!!!!!!

The rest of you take damage, half if you've got Evasion.