ACLU and "separation of church & state"

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by ScreamingEagle, Dec 16, 2004.

  1. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    The usage of the words "separation of church and state" in legal jurisprudence came from a 1947 court case instigated by (surprise, surprise) the ACLU:

    From recent WATimes article:
    More cool info on this subject: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/booklets/separationbooklet.php )


    Why does the ACLU want to "separate church and state"?
    More from this excellent Times piece:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041213-084741-7322r.htm
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. menewa
    Offline

    menewa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    474
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    Ratings:
    +13
    The founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state. Jefferson constantly wrote on the evils of church control of the state in European countries. He wanted something different here.

    Want to see the evidence, try reading the first amendment.
     
  3. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    We're all well aware of what the First Amendment says. The question is: What does a tiny cross on a city seal have to do the church controlling the state?

    The intention of the First Amendment was to protect the church from government as much as anything, not to totally wipe away any sign of any kind of religion from public view.
     
  4. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    menewa,

    so you would defend a decision to redo the LA County seal because of the cross depicted on it?
     
  5. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Let's quote it then:

    Now according to the constitution Congress is a seperate body than either the Federal or the State judiciary.

    Therefore should a state judge choose to present himself in the attire of the ten commandments (like one Alabama fellow chose to do), Congress has no business prohibiting the free exercise thereof, although in this case he certainly may face a voter referundum and/or national scrutiny. And the impending sense of doom felt from such defendents as the likes of Scott Peterson in his murder trial might be worth such a display.

    What other 'proof' do you have that the seperation of Church and State are mandated in American society?

    Would that you were Scrooge, you'd ban Christmas as a Federal holiday, would you not? :dev2:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    I think you have that backwards. The founding fathers did not want a state run church as was the case in England where the king was the head of the Church of England and membership in that church was not only mandatory but supported by taxes. England was not a theocracy as is the case of mullah run Iran.

    That is why the Pilgrims, Puritans and so forth came here, to get away from the religious persecution of England.

    And by the way, Jefferson was the writer of the Declaration of Independence.
    The ones that were instrumental in drafting the Constitution were Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. See the Federalist Papers for a better understanding of what they had in mind when the Constitution was being drafted.


    Here is the text of the First Amendment that you are referring to....
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

    So... Congress shall not make a law establishing a State Church or prohibit people from exercising their chosen religion....

    I hear some of you saying "wait.... what was that second part there Karl? Did you say 'prohibit people from exercising their chosen religion'?"

    Yes, you heard correctly, everyone is so hung up on the "separation of church and state" myth that they totally ignore the fact that the First Amendment clause concerning religion actually has two parts.

    Now I hear some of you saying.... "well, couldn't it be argued that all this stuff about prohibiting of crosses on city seals and so on a violation of that second part of the freedom of religion clause of the first amendment?"

    Very good point... yes I believe it can be argued very convincingly.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    I might also add that Congress establishes the lower courts and can specifically prohibit cases pertaining to any particular subject from being heard.

    So what does that have to do with the argument here? Well, if Congress is to observe the text of the First Amendment, a lower court that is allowed to hear a case involving the suppression of the free exercise of religion is in effect "Congress prohibiting the free exercise thereof".... isn't it?
     
  8. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167

    Indeed it is, and you understand far more of constitutional law than menewa. :thup:

    Now if the First Amendment is modified through this same law, all bets are off...
     
  9. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    We already have separation of church and state. Don't try to distract us from the REAL issue here with petty legal arguments.

    What the ACLU is trying to do is separate our country from its history and moral foundation and ultimately destroy America by allowing communism or some form of it to take over. There is no other explanation why the private organization of the ACLU has continuously attacked Christianity and yet has done its best to protect Communism in a concerted effort over so many, many years.
     
  10. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    You can go back to what the founding fathers said all you want but clearly and beyond argument this policy of seperation and secularism has clearly failed socially. What is the harm in experimenting with something else? What are libs afraid of?
     

Share This Page