Separation of Church and State
It seems I remember reading a thread that stated there was no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution or in the words of the founding fathers. If I am not stating the meaning of the posters correctly, please forgive a weakened mind, drain bammage you know.
Any way I thought I would pass this on:
<<"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281 >>
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm
rcdis
Any way I thought I would pass this on:
<<"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281 >>
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm
rcdis
0
-
After reading Zips Interesting Site thread and the replies, I got to thinking....
Why do so many feel separation of church and state is a bad thing? Does England have separation? I know Henry VIII made his own church just to get some new trim legally. What if Obama gets elected? Would everyone like it if he could make his own state run religion? What about that Mormon dude? Would that be cool?
Look at the Iranians and Afgans. They don't/didn't have separation. I guess we could beat all the rednecks and rappers that wear ball caps inside a dining facility like McDonalds or a hospital since that is disrespectful to god and man. Forget about hunting or watching ballgames on Sunday too. Got cable? Imagine 160 channels all filled with Pat Robertson from 0001 Sunday morning to 0001 Monday morning.
The Communist didn't have separation of church and state either. They left out the church and you just worshipped the state. "Read a bible, go to jail". How many want to give the government the power to sponsor their god? If you give them the power to sponsor, you must also give them the power not to sponsor. Does anyone think if the Democrats gain power, the Christian religion would be at the forefront of diversity training?
It may actually benefit religion not to be hindered by official regulations. How many of you could happily maintain a home with an extra three wives? Forget taking a nap, the "Call to Prayers" is in 30 minutes. What if a Jew or Moslems is elected? Hog farming would be banned. Would eggs and humus become a new breakfast favorite?
Okay, lets hear it from the folks that think the government should sponsor religion, any religion.0 -
I don't want the state "sponsoring" any religion. Nor do it want it hostile to the one religion followed by the people who set up this wonderful system. 0 -
The scriptures do emphasize separation of church and state. But that's mainly because the state is so worldly, that it invariably will end up persecuting/prosecuting the church.
When Jesus and Paul walked the earth, about 1/2 of the largest city on earth, Rome, was composed of slaves. And yet, you read of nothing in Paul's letters, or Jesus' words, condemning slavery as a system. Instead, they recognized the futility of fighting it, and instead counseled how to remain in that situation while glorifying God at the same time.
But, Paul clearly tells us that while we aren't of the world, we are in it, and as such, must remain obedient to the civil ordinances and authorities such as they are.
Paul put it this way, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid...." Romans 13:1-4b
Political systems, rulers, dictators and despots come and go....but the Word of God, and how we are to behave toward those systems and rulers, remains the same, outliving all of them. Some are easy for us to take, others are hard. But we have been told of God how to do it in any case.
Anyhow, that's my take on it.
Sahagan0 -
I hate to harp on "history" again, but it's necessary. when you look at all of history, from the earliest Mesopotamian kings in 3500+ BC to the "enlightened despots" (Frederick II, Joseph II, Catherine The Great) of the Enlightemnent period (1700's), you'll see that tyrannical rulers always required the aegis of Divine Right to control the unwashed masses. the more absolute the better.
for example, when that one guy who was the emperor of later Rome decided to "save" the roman empire, he divided the Roman empire into two centers of power: Maximus (?) and himself (I forgot his name, starts with a D) he gave Maximus the crappy western part of the empire, and had him basd in Milan instead of Rome, ostensibly to militarily control the western frontiers; for himself, he took the eastern part -the richer Asia Minor- supposedly for the same reason, founded a city for himself (later called Constantinople, after Constantine, who would come later) and as the crappy western part crumbled, lo and behold, he got the better half, which survived and prospered quite well. I think it was planned that way from the start. anyways, HE got rid of the Roman style court proceedings and protocols, modeled his court on Oriental styles, and people who would address him, instead of them giving the Roman salute with an outstretched arm, he made them lie flat face down on the floor, since he was now "a god".
that's what you need as a power monger. in fact, later on, Louis the XIV of France modeled his court after that of D., and blatantly proclaimed "I am the state".
in fact, it says as much in "The Prince" (Niccolo Macchiavelli). alongside the precepts of a ruler giving a bevolent image to the people but doing whatever the hell he feels like behind their back to gain and keep power, he also advises claiming Divine Right irregardless of one's beliefs solely for the purpose of power. he gives numerous examples of where he thinks that was the case with other rulers, and how he believed they were full of it. that advice must have been taken to heart by many rulers who read the book, along with the rest of it; it's said that the politics of Europe from that time on had noticeably changed according to the principles set forth in the book. they must have been reading it.
there are too many examples in history to list, where The Church (or "a" church of one kind or another) had too much power over rulers and people for them to bear. too much to list. Henry VIII was an example, splitting off to form the Church of England. Martin Luther. Calvin. where the weight was borne, you can imagine that the Pope was the one who actually ruled over everyone in his dominion, not the kings. How is it, and WHY, would the pope issue a decree that a king was to do what the pope said (who was not answerable to anyone), and that if the pope excommunicated a king, all his pople were to not obey him, but the Pope instead? how, because he has POWER. why, because he wants POWER. his tool to get it is the LIE of religion. flat out. as you can see, it's effective.
btw, those "enlightened despots" who claimed Divine Right, saw it necessary to keep all other social institutions except catholic monasteries, which they dissolved. why do you suppose that is.
finally, I think we can defer to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers of this country. who may also have read The Prince. inthe book, it says that there are three main forms of government, and each form can degenerate into a specific degenerate form. a monarchy degenerates into a tyranny; an aristocracy degenerates into an oligarchy; a democracy degenerates into anarchy. so, you see, our form of government has 3 parts: one of each. president (monarchy), senate (aristocracy), and congress (democracy) to each keep a check on the other from degenerating. so, I think the Founding Fathers must have done much consideration of historical precedents when coming up with the government that they did. including, maybe, reading Machiavelli's book.
in their consideration, they thought it wise to exclude religious influence from the government.0 -
Busch,
Outstanding post!
You obviously have the 11x14. [:)]0 -
what's that? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
what's that?
[:D][:D]
Why, the BIG PICTURE of course! [8D]0 -
oh! thanks. [:)] 0 -
Bushmaster; how can you read the words of the constitution and get the meaning as "EXCLUDE RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE" 0 -
Quote by P3Skyking:
"Okay, lets hear it from the folks that think the government should sponsor religion, any religion."
How is government sposored defined? If you are saying should our gov. mandate that people say that they are this religion or that religion? Or say they believe or agree with any particlur religious docrine? No definitely not. Being forced to believe anything goes against human nature. You can't force anyone to believe anything.0 -
Ok since nobody else has done it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That's it. THere's no constitutional "separation of church and state."0 -
quote:Originally posted by sav99
Quote by P3Skyking:
"Okay, lets hear it from the folks that think the government should sponsor religion, any religion."
How is government sposored defined? If you are saying should our gov. mandate that people say that they are this religion or that religion? Or say they believe or agree with any particlur religious docrine? No definitely not. Being forced to believe anything goes against human nature. You can't force anyone to believe anything.
Sav99,
I know we have had friendly disagreements about religion before, but this is the crux of why the government doesn't sponsor any religion, be it a cross at Christmas or a cresent moon at Ramaden. Would anyone want their children to be forced to learn the Ten Commandments along side The Book of Mormon? How about no beef (Hindu) or pork (Jewish/Moslem) or meat of any kind (Buddhist) being served in the cafeteria?
We've seen the destruction religion can cause in the Middle East, the Holyland of three religions, do we want such a disruptive force in this country already torn by race, color, and language?
Right now, I can hear the hate mongers screaming "Yes!". People want to open a can of worms that could not be closed easily. How can the government be fair? By being partial to none.
I think, by reading your post, you realize this. I wish everyone did.0 -
I agree with you P3. Nobody should be forced to believe anything. It can't even work. The communists tried it and there were still Christians and Jews in the USSR. Now as for a manger scene on public property during Christmas, I feel thats more a matter of tradition than indoctrination. I also don't think tax payers should pay for it. The churches will so why should tax dollars be spent on it.
I've been thinking about something else in regards to what you had said a few days ago. My lady friend's parents are fundamentalist, and sadly they do alot to dissuade people from ever wanting meeting The Lord for themselves because of their legalistic, unloving, and judgmental ways. If I were surrounded by people like them I don't know that I ever would have even given Christ a chance to show me what He's all about. If thats what you are surrounded by in your area, I think I can understand your position on the subject. And thats not good because those types do not reflect how He really is. But if those religious people are all that you've ever seen, than that would be what someone would naturally equate Christ too.0 -
I'm not opposed to the separation of church and state. In fact I think it's a pretty good idea. I just get a little irritated when people say it's in the Constitution. I believe most people who say "It's in the Bible" or "It's in the Constitution" have read neither one.
The First amendment says:
quote: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.
On 1 February 1947, in Supreme Court Case Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing et al., Justice Black said:
quote:The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.
That effectively amended the Constitution and erected a wall between church and state.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
I'm not opposed to the separation of church and state. In fact I think it's a pretty good idea. I just get a little irritated when people say it's in the Constitution. I believe most people who say "It's in the Bible" or "It's in the Constitution" have read neither one.
The First amendment says:
quote: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.
On 1 February 1947, in Supreme Court Case Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing et al., Justice Black said:
quote:The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.
That effectively amended the Constitution and erected a wall between church and state.
thank you [;)]0 -
Freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. The means by which a majority is restrained from shoving what they believe onto those who believe differently. Thus the state must remain apart from any religion. A look at Utah will demonstrate why that should be desirable.
Those who do not embrace religion, or organized religion must also be free to excercise their lack of belief as well.0 -
quote:Originally posted by calamitywood
thank you [;)]
Your welcome. [:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
Freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion.
Those who do not embrace religion, or organized religion must also be free to excercise their lack of belief as well.
I agree, freedom of religion works both ways. Which includes peoples right to believe in no deity at all.
And really from an evangelist's point of view, how can you mandate, or force anyone to willingly surrender their heart to The Lord? Christ wants our love given freely. Not some forced mock obedience or adherence.0 -
The reason a prohibition of Congress making laws respecting a religion was put into the First Amendment was the Founders had seen how well the "Official Church of England" had worked for England.
England's official church was the reason for a great many of the United States citizens being her. They didn't want the same thing to happen here (Wisely in my opinion).
It is a far cry from "Congress shall make no law" to the Township of Podunk, Idaho can't allow a Nativity Scene to be displayed in the town square, or the state sponsored schools mush teach young children the religion or Darwinism.0 -
IMHO it is essential that religion is taught in State sponsored schools.
Students NEED to be told of all the different religions of the World and the cultures they come from. They should have a curriculum that explains the basics of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Buddist, Voodo, Shinto and all the other faiths of the World. The students must be taught what these religions believe in, what is expected of the followers and what the followers can expect in return. Armed with this information the students can then decide for themselves which, if any, of these religions makes sense to them.0 -
We have goverment sponsored religon right now. They have a preferred tax status. Of course there are strings. The black churches in Cleveland, OH can have the political candidates speek from the pulpit at Sunday morning service but no white suburban church dare try that. 0 -
"seperation of church and state" is not in the constitution. however, this is.....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
this is a good thing. please stop with all this nonsense about "seperation of church and state"0 -
He Dog, What's the problem with Utah?
I'm sure you are refering to our restrictive laws? Especially liquor laws?
We are always accused of having no seperation. The first amendment applies, here, just like anywhere. Just because a huge percentage of our population is mormon does not mean that our gov't makes laws "respecting" that religion. It does, however, mean that our elected officials pass laws that reflect the conservative family values that are expected by their constituents.
That is not even close to a "sponsored" religion nor a law "respecting" mormonism.0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Try this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause
Huh? again looking at the words, this link is about a religious test before becoming a elected master or employee. The separation is from the imposition of a religion as a prerequisite. Therefore; if the next POTUS was an atheist he or she (Hillary [;)] ) would not have to invoke God into his acceptance of office.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
25 comments