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

[FurthurBB]

Who cares,the dominating religion was Christianity and it still is. Are Christians stopping anyone from worshipping the way they want ?

No. They just shame, belittle, mock, and ridicule anybody who openly does so, and announces said people are going to hell, and they are happy to believe it.

And even if I say not ALL of them - it is a LOT.

And what would that lot ever do if it got to the point where christianity is not the 'main' religion?

They also might want to be aware that this country may be primarily christian? But we're not primarily pentecostal, holy rolling, fringe people. And many, many people of faith are pro-choice and GLBT-friendly.

The threads intent is to show the level of deceit we have in this country. There is no separation of church and state in our constitution
It also I might add as far as those who "ridicule" are far more civil than those who be head those who dis-agree

So how many wrongs does it take exactly to make one right? I can never figure it out.

 

[Sallow]

He has no clue what he is talking about. Republicans don't hate Jefferson, dimwits do. Dimwits hate republicans because republicans actually understand the constitution.

No.

Actually a great many Republicans don't understand the Constitution.

Most of the people here stumping against Separation of Church and state don't understand the role of the judiciary either.

Have you ever noticed how often the far right makes an argument which depends on denying the existence and power of SCOTUS?

Most of their arguments depend on denying the Constitution in general.

Think taxes. That's the first job of Congress. To levy taxes.

Go from there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In summary, pre-Constitution, the religion that one was allowed was largely based on where one lived.
Madison and Jefferson worked mightily to support dissenters, those who wished to follow religions other than locally established. But neither found religion to be other than a benefit to the nation.

And neither would remove religion from the public discourse.


Wise up.
Grow up.

You really didn't read your own source (which of course is uncredited) nor bothered to read my response. Even by your own quotes, Rhode Island was seen as a haven for refugees from state governments whose apparatus entangled themselves with religion. Obviously where there was no such separation, there were fundamental problems with civil liberties.

You are making a phony argument that the Establishment Clause is meant to banish religion from the political sphere.

As I said before, as long as the government embraces all faiths and does not exclude others or engage in blatant sectarian acts, religious expression is OK. Ecumenialism is the byword here not atheism. Inclusiveness of all faiths.

What are you really stumping for when you attack Separation of Church and State?
-Do you really want the ability of the government to engage in sectarian discrimination?
-Do you really have so little respect for faiths besides your own?
-Do you understand how this protects Free Exercise of Religion?

1. Uncredited???
Did you miss this: "Covered more fully in Kidd's "God of Liberty," chapter two."

2. I see the problem: it was in English.

From Amazon, a review of the book:
"With a particular reliance on primary sources, Kidd brings to light questions pertinent to our own situation today. What did Jefferson mean by a "wall of separation?" "Was America founded as a Christian nation?" Yes and no. Kidd tells it like it is without glossing over issues some may want to ignore. Our founding fathers were a group of people with very different religious persuasions who came together for the cause of liberty. All agreed liberty and equality were bequeathed by our Creator. The "wall of separation" and the freedom of religion were won by a uniting of the evangelicals and the rationalists to bring about the disestablishment of a state supported denomination. Jefferson "saw religion as an indispensable bulwark of the Republic, and he would never have entertained the idea that government should be hostile to religious exercise..."

When you get around to reading, you will find this book enlightening.

3. I still await your apology for suggesting that I was in any way less than honest. Note that I refrained from applying that appellation to you, and have simply documented how wrong you are.

4. The notes from Dr. Kidd's work clearly destroy your idea that Rhode Island was the driving force behind the the freedom of religion in the Constitution. No, it was the work of Jeffeson and Madison, supporting dissenters from established relilgions in the colonies. And that support was aimed at keeping government out of one's practice of religion...and certainly, not the reverse.

5. "You are making a phony argument that the Establishment Clause is meant to banish religion from the political sphere."
This statement was amazing.
This is completely the reverse of what I have stated!
The Founders and the Constitution establish clearly that Americans have the right to practice religion as they see fit, and it was the Progressives-Liberals who injected the anti-religon pose. Folks like Roscoe Pound and Hugo Black were responsible, and have manipulated uneducated folks like yourself.

But...you have no clue who Roscoe Pound was...and no clue about so many other important ideas.

6. "...as the government embraces all faiths and does not exclude others or engage in blatant sectarian acts, religious expression is OK."
You are so confused.
Secularists like yourself decry every public display of religion.

Case in point:
"Public schools may not allow prayers before football games

Eight years ago on June 19th, the US Supreme Court announced a landmark decision on one of the most controversial topics in American jurisprudence: school prayer. In Santa Fe v. Doe, the Court ruled that public schools cannot permit student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court concluded that the football game prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events, and that the District’s policy involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at important school events. Such speech is not properly characterized as “private,” wrote Justice Stevens for the majority. In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, noted the “disturbing” tone of the Court’s opinion that “bristle[d] with hostility to all things religious in public life.”
Public schools may not allow prayers before football games » LII Announce

7. "What are you really stumping for when you attack Separation of Church and State?"
You have this completely backward.
The Constitution, in plain language, supports the practice of religion, endorses same and it is the "attack" by the Left that requires a defense.

Our founding documents require a neutral, not hostile, view of religion at the very least.
Too bad you fail to see that.

 

[JRK]

No.

Actually a great many Republicans don't understand the Constitution.

Most of the people here stumping against Separation of Church and state don't understand the role of the judiciary either.

Have you ever noticed how often the far right makes an argument which depends on denying the existence and power of SCOTUS?

Most of their arguments depend on denying the Constitution in general.

Think taxes. That's the first job of Congress. To levy taxes.

Go from there.

The thread that began this refers to SCOTUS
It amazes me the liberals in this country would take one mans opinion and dis regard what is in the US constitution as it means nothing
Understand Judiciary?
without doubt I understand that if it is not the will of the people, put a left wing nut job Within the judicial branch and do it just the way the USSR did it

Dictate it

 

[catzmeow]

You are right, separation of Church and State is not found in the constitution. It is, however, Jefferson's description of the intent of the establishment clause. Most people who trot out this argument don't understand the historic context of this concept.

Many early immigrant groups traveled to America to worship freely, particularly after the English Civil War and religious conflict in France and Germany.[8] They included nonconformists like the Puritans, as well as Catholics. Despite a common background, the groups' views on religious toleration were mixed. While some such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn ensured the protection of religious minorities within their colonies, others like the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony had established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, though enforcement was sparse. Religious conformity was desired partly for financial reasons: the established Church was responsible for poverty relief, so dissenting churches would have a significant edge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Consider the case of the Danbury Baptist Association, to whom Thomas Jefferson directed the letter which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." At the time when Jefferson penned that phrase, every person in the state of Connecticut was required to pay MANDATORY church taxes to the Congregational religious hierarchy, and this status quo (in Connecticut) wasn't overturned until 1818.

In other words, when the constitution was drafted, there were still established churches in multiple states in the U.S. Those churches taxed residents, provided services, and people of dissenting faiths could not opt out of their control of these things.

Our nation's stance on these issues has evolved gradually over time, based upon the writings of the founding fathers, particularly jefferson and madison, and based upon the development of state constitutions and case law.

Religious folks should beware about inviting government to sit in the pew with them. That's a match designed to cause some degree of discomfort to both.

I think Madison said it best when he wrote: "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

The Constitution and the First Amendment and Thomas Jefferson's letter and dozens of other items clearly reveal that, yes, separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

 

[Texanmike]

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

The Constitution and the First Amendment and Thomas Jefferson's letter and dozens of other items clearly reveal that, yes, separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

At which level?

Mike

 

[CryingKoala]

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

The Constitution and the First Amendment and Thomas Jefferson's letter and dozens of other items clearly reveal that, yes, separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

At which level?

Mike

Thanks to the 14th Amendment, AT ALL LEVELS. [pesky equal protection under the law]

State's rights arguments don't factor into it.

 

[Sallow]

At which level?

Mike

What the fuck do you mean "At what level"..

Have you ever read the United States Constitution?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Constitution is supreme.

That level.

 

[CryingKoala]

1. Uncredited???
Did you miss this: "Covered more fully in Kidd's "God of Liberty," chapter two."

Bullshit, you pulled a cut and paste job and are too cowardly to give us the link.


3. I still await your apology for suggesting that I was in any way less than honest. Note that I refrained from applying that appellation to you, and have simply documented how wrong you are.

Don't hold your breath. Your real source is still questionable. My guess is something related to David Barton and Wallbuilders. It has all the hallmarks of his bad scholarship, cherry picked and falsified historical quotes and ahistorical views of 18th Century America.

The Founders and the Constitution establish clearly that Americans have the right to practice religion as they see fit, and it was the Progressives-Liberals who injected the anti-religon pose. Folks like Roscoe Pound and Hugo Black were responsible, and have manipulated uneducated folks like yourself.

Which is still dishonest tripe considering the concept of separation of church and state both predated the founding of the country and was explicated in Jefferson's take on the Establishment Clause.


Secularists like yourself decry every public display of religion.

Again you fail to read my responses and go with a phony argument.

What part of "as the government embraces all faiths and does not exclude others or engage in blatant sectarian acts, religious expression is OK" is an attack on public display of religion? None of it. Try again.


The Constitution, in plain language, supports the practice of religion, endorses same and it is the "attack" by the Left that requires a defense.

Only when it is inclusive and non-sectarian in nature. Something you want to avoid discussing at all costs because it doesn't fit in with your canned argument and lazy assumptions.

Our founding documents require a neutral, not hostile, view of religion at the very least.
Too bad you fail to see that.

That neutrality can only be kept by keeping the apparatus of religion out of government. Anything less than that makes any hope of free exercise of religion a total farce.

 

[Sallow]

1. Uncredited???
Did you miss this: "Covered more fully in Kidd's "God of Liberty," chapter two."

Bullshit, you pulled a cut and paste job and are too cowardly to give us the link.


3. I still await your apology for suggesting that I was in any way less than honest. Note that I refrained from applying that appellation to you, and have simply documented how wrong you are.

Don't hold your breath. Your real source is still questionable. My guess is something related to David Barton and Wallbuilders. It has all the hallmarks of his bad scholarship, cherry picked and falsified historical quotes and ahistorical views of 18th Century America.

The Founders and the Constitution establish clearly that Americans have the right to practice religion as they see fit, and it was the Progressives-Liberals who injected the anti-religon pose. Folks like Roscoe Pound and Hugo Black were responsible, and have manipulated uneducated folks like yourself.

Which is still dishonest tripe considering the concept of separation of church and state both predated the founding of the country and was explicated in Jefferson's take on the Establishment Clause.


Secularists like yourself decry every public display of religion.

Again you fail to read my responses and go with a phony argument.

What part of "as the government embraces all faiths and does not exclude others or engage in blatant sectarian acts, religious expression is OK" is an attack on public display of religion? None of it. Try again.


The Constitution, in plain language, supports the practice of religion, endorses same and it is the "attack" by the Left that requires a defense.

Only when it is inclusive and non-sectarian in nature. Something you want to avoid discussing at all costs because it doesn't fit in with your canned argument and lazy assumptions.

Our founding documents require a neutral, not hostile, view of religion at the very least.
Too bad you fail to see that.

That neutrality can only be kept by keeping the apparatus of religion out of government. Anything less than that makes any hope of free exercise of religion a total farce.

Man you have more patience for her then I..Kunga Din.

 

[FuelRod]

The problem with Liberals and their "Seperation of Church and State" falacy is they conveniently ignore "...the free exercise thereof."

 

[catzmeow]

The Founders and the Constitution establish clearly that Americans have the right to practice religion as they see fit, and it was the Progressives-Liberals who injected the anti-religon pose. Folks like Roscoe Pound and Hugo Black were responsible, and have manipulated uneducated folks like yourself.[/B]

Which is still dishonest tripe considering the concept of separation of church and state both predated the founding of the country and was explicated in Jefferson's take on the Establishment Clause.

Try John Locke, ftw.

 

[catzmeow]

The problem with Liberals and their "Seperation of Church and State" falacy is they conveniently ignore "...the free exercise thereof."

Is someone keeping you from getting to church on Sunday?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You are right, separation of Church and State is not found in the constitution. It is, however, Jefferson's description of the intent of the establishment clause. Most people who trot out this argument don't understand the historic context of this concept.

Many early immigrant groups traveled to America to worship freely, particularly after the English Civil War and religious conflict in France and Germany.[8] They included nonconformists like the Puritans, as well as Catholics. Despite a common background, the groups' views on religious toleration were mixed. While some such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn ensured the protection of religious minorities within their colonies, others like the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony had established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, though enforcement was sparse. Religious conformity was desired partly for financial reasons: the established Church was responsible for poverty relief, so dissenting churches would have a significant edge.
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider the case of the Danbury Baptist Association, to whom Thomas Jefferson directed the letter which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." At the time when Jefferson penned that phrase, every person in the state of Connecticut was required to pay MANDATORY church taxes to the Congregational religious hierarchy, and this status quo (in Connecticut) wasn't overturned until 1818.

In other words, when the constitution was drafted, there were still established churches in multiple states in the U.S. Those churches taxed residents, provided services, and people of dissenting faiths could not opt out of their control of these things.

Our nation's stance on these issues has evolved gradually over time, based upon the writings of the founding fathers, particularly jefferson and madison, and based upon the development of state constitutions and case law.

Religious folks should beware about inviting government to sit in the pew with them. That's a match designed to cause some degree of discomfort to both.

I think Madison said it best when he wrote: "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."

Guess you missed this the first time I posted. Go to the source which is the Library of Congress and read the abundant documents that makes it clear that the "separation of Church and State" was not meant to keep religion out of government. I mean seriously if that was Jefferson's intent then why would he allow Church services to be held in executive branch buildings?

Sometimes you idiots have to use some common sense. If that is at all possible.

And the Madison quote you bolded in is basically what i said earlier, separation of church and state is to keep government out of our religious affairs, not to keep religion out of government.

Read more about Jefferson and Madison and how they used government buildings for church services and then tell me they wanted this so-call wall of separation.


Jefferson attended church services in the House of Representatives. Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall (The Old House of Representatives) from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.

Abijah Bigelow, a Federalist congressman from Massachusetts, describes President James Madison at a church service in the House on December 27, 1812, as well as an incident that had occurred when Jefferson was in attendance some years earlier.

On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon. Adams had claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant of other religions and therefore incompatible with republican institutions. England asserted that "we do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns." "I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our church," added England, "the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box."

In 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868), the daughter and granddaughter of Congressmen, became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. The first woman to preach before the House (and probably the first woman to speak officially in Congress under any circumstances) was the English evangelist, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832), who conducted a service on January 12, 1806. Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr were among those in a "crowded audience." Sizing up the congregation, Ripley concluded that "very few" had been born again and broke into an urgent, camp meeting style exhortation, insisting that "Christ's Body was the Bread of Life and His Blood the drink of the righteous."

Manasseh Cutler here describes a four-hour communion service in the Treasury Building, conducted by a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend James Laurie: "Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. Laurie alone. Sacrament. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours."

The first Treasury Building, where several denominations conducted church services, was burned by the British in 1814. The new building, seen here on the lower right, was built on approximately the same location as the earlier one, within view of the White House.

John Quincy Adams here describes the Reverend James Laurie, pastor of a Presbyterian Church that had settled into the Treasury Building, preaching to an overflow audience in the Supreme Court Chamber, which in 1806 was located on the ground floor of the Capitol.

Description of church services in the Supreme Court chamber by Manasseh Cutler (1804) and John Quincy Adams (1806) indicate that services were held in the Court soon after the government moved to Washington in 1800.

Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.

The House moved to its current location on the south side of the Capitol in 1857. It contained the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience" in the United States when the First Congregational Church of Washington held services there from 1865 to 1868.

Sources and authentic letters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are right, separation of Church and State is not found in the constitution. It is, however, Jefferson's description of the intent of the establishment clause. Most people who trot out this argument don't understand the historic context of this concept.

Many early immigrant groups traveled to America to worship freely, particularly after the English Civil War and religious conflict in France and Germany.[8] They included nonconformists like the Puritans, as well as Catholics. Despite a common background, the groups' views on religious toleration were mixed. While some such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn ensured the protection of religious minorities within their colonies, others like the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony had established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, though enforcement was sparse. Religious conformity was desired partly for financial reasons: the established Church was responsible for poverty relief, so dissenting churches would have a significant edge.
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider the case of the Danbury Baptist Association, to whom Thomas Jefferson directed the letter which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." At the time when Jefferson penned that phrase, every person in the state of Connecticut was required to pay MANDATORY church taxes to the Congregational religious hierarchy, and this status quo (in Connecticut) wasn't overturned until 1818.

In other words, when the constitution was drafted, there were still established churches in multiple states in the U.S. Those churches taxed residents, provided services, and people of dissenting faiths could not opt out of their control of these things.

Our nation's stance on these issues has evolved gradually over time, based upon the writings of the founding fathers, particularly jefferson and madison, and based upon the development of state constitutions and case law.

Religious folks should beware about inviting government to sit in the pew with them. That's a match designed to cause some degree of discomfort to both.

I think Madison said it best when he wrote: "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
Written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Wallace v. Jaffree

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The Founders and the Constitution establish clearly that Americans have the right to practice religion as they see fit, and it was the Progressives-Liberals who injected the anti-religon pose. Folks like Roscoe Pound and Hugo Black were responsible, and have manipulated uneducated folks like yourself.[/B]

Which is still dishonest tripe considering the concept of separation of church and state both predated the founding of the country and was explicated in Jefferson's take on the Establishment Clause.

Try John Locke, ftw.

We've been over this in many threads and each time you liberal pukes got your asses handed to you. This is going to another one of those times.

 

[FuelRod]

The problem with Liberals and their "Seperation of Church and State" falacy is they conveniently ignore "...the free exercise thereof."

Is someone keeping you from getting to church on Sunday?

You're smarter than that.

 

[CryingKoala]

The Founders and the Constitution establish clearly that Americans have the right to practice religion as they see fit, and it was the Progressives-Liberals who injected the anti-religon pose. Folks like Roscoe Pound and Hugo Black were responsible, and have manipulated uneducated folks like yourself.[/B]

Which is still dishonest tripe considering the concept of separation of church and state both predated the founding of the country and was explicated in Jefferson's take on the Establishment Clause.

Try John Locke, ftw.

Roger Williams has John Locke beat by about 50 years and was just as explicit about the separation of church and state. Plus he was an American! (American colonist anyway).

You are still right. But there is more to the story.

People tend to forget that separation of church and state has a religious origin. It was the long persecuted Anabaptist sects which really made it a major part of their ideals when they colonized America. We owe much of our concepts of religious freedom from them. Their legacy is still seen in the theology of the Quakers (Society of Friends). A group which hold such separation of church and state to be an integral part of their religious practices.

 

[CryingKoala]

The Founders and the Constitution establish clearly that Americans have the right to practice religion as they see fit, and it was the Progressives-Liberals who injected the anti-religon pose. Folks like Roscoe Pound and Hugo Black were responsible, and have manipulated uneducated folks like yourself.[/B]

Which is still dishonest tripe considering the concept of separation of church and state both predated the founding of the country and was explicated in Jefferson's take on the Establishment Clause.

Try John Locke, ftw.

We've been over this in many threads and each time you liberal pukes got your asses handed to you. This is going to another one of those times.

I haven't seen it here yet. Just a lot of piss poor history being cited by the theocrats and lousy understanding of how our constitution works.