Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Texanmike]

Anyone who believes that separation of church and government was a part of the intent of the Constitution needs to look at history. There were several states that had State religions at the ratification of the first amendment. Congress was not allowed to make a law, the states made sure there was no confusion to that point. There was an official religion until 1830's (Mass or NY I think).

The only real argument between separating government and religion is under the incorporation theory of the 14th Amendment. Again it just doesn't hold water. It was upheld by the SCOTUS but it is a pretty weak version of connect the dots.

The separation of church and government (at any level) is a myth. So long as a level of government does not prevent you from practicing religion or respect the establishment of (go look up what that phrase means, its actually interesting) then there is no issue. It is another example of disregarding the original intent of ratification.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

a) I believe that, outside of the amendment process, the specific words and language of the Constitution should direct this nation.

b) I believe that the Constitution was fitting for its time, but the world changes and so wise judges should state what the law should be, and their decisions used as precedent, as co-equal to the words in the Constitution...even, at times, contrary to those words.

I believe the SCOTUS already set precedent and your false dilemma doesn't bother me a bit.

Seriously? Then why have a Constitution? Hell, why have a legislature? Have you read the Constitution or any of the arguments up to the ratification? Locke, Hume? Bastiat? Plutarch?

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

Incorrect.

It is found here:

The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped.

Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

Needless to say the radical right, TPM, and libertarians will reject this ruling as they reject the principle of judicial review and the rule of law comprehensively. I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it. That they should reject it because they don’t agree with the ruling is without merit, and meaningless, subjective opinion.

Regardless, per Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means, and per the Court separation of church and State is in the Constitution.

Consequently, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, et al, are indeed wrong in their belief that church and State should be conjoined, that American law should be based on the bible, and that prohibitions accordingly are in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

Explain why 3 of the colonies had official state religions and ratified the Constitution?

You are correct. I reject stare decisis. It is a ridiculous practice which allows anyone to determine that anything is practical.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The court does not "decide what the Constitution means". I know thats a popular opinion in the legal realm (you know since it actually makes legal specialization necessary and well paid) but it is another ridiculous assertion by intellectual elitists. I mean imagine that? Judges determine that they are granted some special interpretative power over the Constitution. Not only that but if a judge before them made an interpretation they are welcome to continue with that instead of looking at the actual Constitution. Again, why bother with the Constitution?



Mike

 

[Gadawg73]

Sorry pal, but you cannot codify your bible into the law of the land. If you want to pray, then go for it. No one is stopping you. I don't know why you have to be in your face about it.

As a side note, this is why Texans took Thomas Jefferson out of the history books. I don't know why Republicans despise Jefferson so much, but they do.

What is wonderful about this myth is how folks like you have been mislead, and yell your misinformation from the highest peaks!

It is wonderful for the amusment it provides for those of us knowledgeable about the Jefferson letter.

In short, Jefferson was reassuring the Danbury Baptists that their governments would not impose a state religion, nor impose on their exercising religion in the manner they see fit.

Nicely writen as follows:
"To provide some context, “the Baptists who supported Jefferson were outsiders — a beleaguered religious and political minority in region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.” They were seeking reassurances of a religion friendly disposition from their new president who was horribly vilified during the election as an “infidel and atheist.”

This rumor had become so widespread during the presidential campaign, New England housewives were known to have buried their family Bibles in the backyards so fearful that the new Administration would confiscate their Holy Scriptures.

So this famous letter having to do with the ‘wall of separation between church and state’ was a political statement giving his reassurances to the Baptists that he was a friend to religion, and a response to the vilification he received from the Federalist Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. This was not a definitive manifesto on the relationship between government and religion."
https://writingaboutanythingiwantto.wordpress.com/tag/hugo-black/

So, let us gauge the depth of your misunderstanding by your post.

You see, Jefferson was verifying that the purpose of the Constitution was to keep government out of religion....

...not religion out of the public arena.

You've been tricked by Leftist invention.

So The Treaty of Tripoli in 1797and The Age of Reason written by Thomas Paine first published in 1794 were influenced by "Leftist intervention"?
Where is religion kept out of the public arena anywhere in this country? Religion has more freedom here today than anywhere else on earth, other than the current persecution of the Muslim faith by some.

A wall keeps both parties out of each other's business.
Every nation in Europe in the late 1700s was influenced heavily by religion and you claim that the Founders still wanted religous influence in our new nation's government?
Show us some evidence of that. Something, anything, some place, some where?
Where is it?
You have nothing of substance or anything specific.
The facts are clear in the debates in the writing of the 1st Amendment. Ever read that?
The facts are clear that the Pledge of Allegiance did not have mention of God in it until hack politicians mandated it for votes almost 200 years later.
Where is there ANY MENTION of God or the Christian religion anywhere in The United States Constitution?
"Practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity OF BOTH, and as guaranteed by The United States Constitution of The United States" Madison
Ever heard of him?
How come we see nothing but opinion and rhetoric in your "analysis"?

 

[Texanmike]

Sorry pal, but you cannot codify your bible into the law of the land. If you want to pray, then go for it. No one is stopping you. I don't know why you have to be in your face about it.

As a side note, this is why Texans took Thomas Jefferson out of the history books. I don't know why Republicans despise Jefferson so much, but they do.

What is wonderful about this myth is how folks like you have been mislead, and yell your misinformation from the highest peaks!

It is wonderful for the amusment it provides for those of us knowledgeable about the Jefferson letter.

In short, Jefferson was reassuring the Danbury Baptists that their governments would not impose a state religion, nor impose on their exercising religion in the manner they see fit.

Nicely writen as follows:
"To provide some context, “the Baptists who supported Jefferson were outsiders — a beleaguered religious and political minority in region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.” They were seeking reassurances of a religion friendly disposition from their new president who was horribly vilified during the election as an “infidel and atheist.”

This rumor had become so widespread during the presidential campaign, New England housewives were known to have buried their family Bibles in the backyards so fearful that the new Administration would confiscate their Holy Scriptures.

So this famous letter having to do with the ‘wall of separation between church and state’ was a political statement giving his reassurances to the Baptists that he was a friend to religion, and a response to the vilification he received from the Federalist Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. This was not a definitive manifesto on the relationship between government and religion."
https://writingaboutanythingiwantto.wordpress.com/tag/hugo-black/

So, let us gauge the depth of your misunderstanding by your post.

You see, Jefferson was verifying that the purpose of the Constitution was to keep government out of religion....

...not religion out of the public arena.

You've been tricked by Leftist invention.

So The Treaty of Tripoli in 1797and The Age of Reason written by Thomas Paine first published in 1794 were influenced by "Leftist intervention"?
Where is religion kept out of the public arena anywhere in this country? Religion has more freedom here today than anywhere else on earth, other than the current persecution of the Muslim faith by some.

A wall keeps both parties out of each other's business.
Every nation in Europe in the late 1700s was influenced heavily by religion and you claim that the Founders still wanted religous influence in our new nation's government?
Show us some evidence of that. Something, anything, some place, some where?
Where is it?
You have nothing of substance or anything specific.
The facts are clear in the debates in the writing of the 1st Amendment. Ever read that?
The facts are clear that the Pledge of Allegiance did not have mention of God in it until hack politicians mandated it for votes almost 200 years later.
Where is there ANY MENTION of God or the Christian religion anywhere in The United States Constitution?
"Practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity OF BOTH, and as guaranteed by The United States Constitution of The United States" Madison
Ever heard of him?
How come we see nothing but opinion and rhetoric in your "analysis"?

I love and revere Jefferson but he was not the only one in congress. In fact several states had official State Religions. Mass (or NY, I always forget) required you to perform religious activities as late as 1830-1840. The states, the actual parties that contracted the federal government clearly did not ratify a document which prevented religion from any level of government. In fact the first amendment specifically prohibits Congress from doing so. Again, incorporation doctrine (I find it utterly amusing that people actually argue for that), aside there was clearly no 1st amendment put in place to remove religious from public property. As for the argument for or against religion in public schools? That should be an Amendment itself, unless of course the states will be allowed to do what they will. Clearly religion in public education was not a consideration one way or the other in the founders minds (we didn't have any semblance of a public school system until the 1850's.). I don't and I don't think anyone would know what they would think about something like that (I suspect they would have left the public schools to the states but I really can't speak authoritatively on that TBH.) but that decision was not left to the federal government, that much is clear. If the states want to grant that to the federal government, amend it and get it over with.

Mike

 

[Lokiate]

No, but "arms" does. And a pistol is a way one arms themselves.

Just as open to interpretation as is "separation of church and state"

Not hardly.

Pistols are implied, just as the separation is implied by the Congress not being able to respect an establishment of religion, nor prohibit free exercise thereof. It's telling government to leave religion alone altogether, thus separation of church and state.

 

[Patrick2]

As long as precedent has been set, and it has, it is the law of the land. A Christian Taliban is still illegal in the US, thank God, and the rest is unimportant.

Keep your religion out of my government, just as the SCOTUS has ruled.

Nonsense - bad precedents have been overturned - eg Brown v. Board of education overturned plessy v. Ferguson.

 

[Patrick2]

When right wingers insist there is no separation of church and state, what is it they are trying to get at? What do they actually want? Are they looking for a kind of "Christian" Taliban? Do they want to put America under a "Christian" style "Sharia Law"? Does that mean we suddenly stop teaching "science"? One wonders.

Gosh yeah - maybe they plan to burn non-believers at the stake? Garsh doggy, there's just no limit to what those folks might do!!!

 

[JRK]

With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth

No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to

The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what your saying is the SCOTUS set the precedent that now separates the church from the state and has ruled in agreement with its precedent many times since, further defining the separation of the two.

So who's lying to you?

The SCOTUS?

I put out the information. It is not in the constitution
I never said anything else
The myth is there is some power that separates church and state

 

[JRK]

Just as open to interpretation as is "separation of church and state"

Not hardly.

Pistols are implied, just as the separation is implied by the Congress not being able to respect an establishment of religion, nor prohibit free exercise thereof. It's telling government to leave religion alone altogether, thus separation of church and state.

That is an opinion
that has nothing to do with fact

 

[JRK]

When right wingers insist there is no separation of church and state, what is it they are trying to get at? What do they actually want? Are they looking for a kind of "Christian" Taliban? Do they want to put America under a "Christian" style "Sharia Law"? Does that mean we suddenly stop teaching "science"? One wonders.

Gosh yeah - maybe they plan to burn non-believers at the stake? Garsh doggy, there's just no limit to what those folks might do!!!

We want the media to report the truth. We want you to start voting on the truth and we want our leaders to start with the truth
If you read what is in the constitution that I so dearly support, it protects your right to have what you actually want
Burn non -believers? thats pre school paranoia that has nothing to do with the subject. It resolves nothing. It does nothing to improve our country

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Just as open to interpretation as is "separation of church and state"

Not hardly.

Pistols are implied, just as the separation is implied by the Congress not being able to respect an establishment of religion, nor prohibit free exercise thereof. It's telling government to leave religion alone altogether, thus separation of church and state.

It's basically saying that government is to stay of or religion, but it does not say that religion must stay out of government.

 

[Sallow]

Sorry pal, but you cannot codify your bible into the law of the land. If you want to pray, then go for it. No one is stopping you. I don't know why you have to be in your face about it.

As a side note, this is why Texans took Thomas Jefferson out of the history books. I don't know why Republicans despise Jefferson so much, but they do.

Who's trying to codify the Holy Bible? WTF are you talking about?

You guys are..

 

[Sallow]

Not hardly.

Pistols are implied, just as the separation is implied by the Congress not being able to respect an establishment of religion, nor prohibit free exercise thereof. It's telling government to leave religion alone altogether, thus separation of church and state.

It's basically saying that government is to stay of or religion, but it does not say that religion must stay out of government.

Naw.

It says that too.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Pistols are implied, just as the separation is implied by the Congress not being able to respect an establishment of religion, nor prohibit free exercise thereof. It's telling government to leave religion alone altogether, thus separation of church and state.

It's basically saying that government is to stay of or religion, but it does not say that religion must stay out of government.

Naw.

It says that too.

No it doesn't dumbass.

If it did then every President from Washington to Obama has violated it.

 

[Gadawg73]

One of the more infamous examples of rightist ignorance of the First Amendment occurred just last fall:

WILMINGTON, Del. — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."

O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.

Christine O'Donnell Questions Separation Of Church & State (VIDEO)

The cause of the surprise on the part of the audience is understandable, given it was made up of legal scholars and educators who were familiar with McCollum, knew that it codified the doctrine of separation of church and State into Constitutional case law, and knew, consequently, it was indeed part of the Constitution.

That conservatives oppose the Doctrine is troubling and telling. We hear Michele Bachmann refer to separation of church and State as a ‘myth.’ Herman Cain advocates violating the First Amendment by announcing he won’t hire Muslims into his administration because of their religion.

One is compelled to again ask: ‘where are the small government conservatives’? Where is conservative opposition to government ‘overreach ‘ and ‘excess,’ why no concern with regard to ‘individual liberty’ in this circumstance?

The clear and logical extrapolation is, of course, many conservatives wish to see religion conjoined with government: where prayer is again in the schools, where homosexuals are deprived their due process rights because of their ‘sin,’ and where Muslims are subject to restrictions because of an inane, unfounded fear of their faith and ‘terrorism.’

I am a conservative and support the doctrine.
Of course I have been a conservative LONG BEFORE the religous right whack litmus test of:
You can not be conservsative if :
1.you believe in evolution.
2. you believe in gay rights.
3. you believe that Jews and all other religions and their religous beliefs are just as correct as any Christians.
4. you believe in the doctrine of church and state
5. you do not repeat the lie that "God has been taken out of the schools".
Just to name a few.

In the 60s NO ONE would ever question a conservative on what their religous beliefs were.
Farting in church was more acceptable than that.

 

[Sallow]

It's basically saying that government is to stay of or religion, but it does not say that religion must stay out of government.

Naw.

It says that too.

No it doesn't dumbass.

If it did then every President from Washington to Obama has violated it.

Dumbass?

When did Texas become a Republic?

 

[Sallow]

Hmm..another Conservative intellectual.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Om-oDWSPtM]Christine O'Donnell First Amendment Separation Of Church And State - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Gadawg73]

Who in their right mind wants religion involved and in government?
Certainly not the Founders. They ran from that.
The Church of England, and their many followers in the Colonies, THE TORRIES, you know, THE ENEMY, had a huge investment to protect and God was used. My forefathers were labeled as TERRORISTS by the religous folks in the colonies that had the support of the predominant religous organization of the day, THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
Every government in Europe of the day had religion in government and we hear claims here the Founders wanted to keep that. Laughable and absurd.
Religion in government supports the doctrine of divine right as we have seen in the Republican primaries. Three Republicans have claimed God told them to run.
Religion has no place in government and that is the best and ONLY way to protect EACH religion from the possible influences one religion may have over another with the powerof government.
As a strong conservative Christian I NEVER WANT my religion or any other to be in or ifluence government in any way.
Government is secular and was set up to be that way for a reason.
The Founders sure were smart.

 

[Sallow]

Who in their right mind wants religion involved and in government?
Certainly not the Founders. They ran from that.
The Church of England, and their many followers in the Colonies, THE TORRIES, you know, THE ENEMY, had a huge investment to protect and God was used. My forefathers were labeled as TERRORISTS by the religous folks in the colonies that had the support of the predominant religous organization of the day, THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
Every government in Europe of the day had religion in government and we hear claims here the Founders wanted to keep that. Laughable and absurd.
Religion in government supports the doctrine of divine right as we have seen in the Republican primaries. Three Republicans have claimed God told them to run.
Religion has no place in government and that is the best and ONLY way to protect EACH religion from the possible influences one religion may have over another with the powerof government.
As a strong conservative Christian I NEVER WANT my religion or any other to be in or ifluence government in any way.
Government is secular and was set up to be that way for a reason.
The Founders sure were smart.

Damn.

Can't rep you twice.