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

[CryingKoala]

Go back and read it...than you'll have another item not to apologize for.

When you start giving an honest presentation, I may apologize. I am still not seeing it from you. Come back when you get an original thought.


How the heck would a dolt like you know anything about scholarship???

I am not relying on canned arguments based on bad history. Your whole spiel is just parroting the same crap David Barton and the Wallbuilders have been putting out for years.
http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9606/barton.html
[Unlike yourself, I give links that have actual significance to the discussion]

I have informed you several times already that separation of church and state predated the nation and you ignore it, lather, rinse and repeat the same junk.

What I provided was my notes from reading the book.

Liar. Its a typical ploy from people who use online sources of ill repute to claim they are just copying it from a book.


4. "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."

Link?

Check my prior post concerning you being spanked by Roger Williams.

Since almost every colony established or supported a particular church, your contention is nonsense on the face of it.

Except two which made a special point of not doing that! The ones whose influence led to the creation of the Establishment Clause in the first place. You keep ignoring their existence as if it will go away.

You really don't have a goddamn clue about the history you are allegedly (but not really) quoting from.

 

[Ernie S.]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
You friggin libs piss me off. I want what the amendment says. I want government completely neutral with regards to religion.
I don't want a state religion, but if I want to offer a prayer before a football game, you have no right to prohibit that. To refuse me the right to pray, is "prohibit(ing) the free exercise thereof", is it not?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Go back and read it...than you'll have another item not to apologize for.

When you start giving an honest presentation, I may apologize. I am still not seeing it from you. Come back when you get an original thought.


How the heck would a dolt like you know anything about scholarship???

I am not relying on canned arguments based on bad history. Your whole spiel is just parroting the same crap David Barton and the Wallbuilders have been putting out for years.

I have informed you several times already that separation of church and state predated the nation and you ignore it, lather, rinse and repeat the same junk.

What I provided was my notes from reading the book.

Liar. Its a typical ploy from people who use online sources of ill repute to claim they are just copying it from a book.


4. "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."

Link?

Check my prior post concerning you being spanked by Roger Williams.

"What I provided was my notes from reading the book.

Liar. Its a typical ploy from people who use online sources of ill repute to claim they are just copying it from a book."

I never lie.

And your excuse to provide more personal attack is transparent: your words are of one who knows nothing of scholarship, and doesn't read.

But, don’t let me keep you…I know you are hungrily searching for a new human host organism.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In Engel v. Vitale (1962), where the Court struck down as un-Constitutional prayer in public schools, the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State was reaffirmed:

The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

Engel v. Vitale

This is of particular significance as this venue, public schools, is where most conservatives advocate violating the First Amendment, Michele Bachmann most of all.

So as we see, separation of church and State is indeed in the Constitution, it is not a ‘myth,’ liberal or otherwise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Go back and read it...than you'll have another item not to apologize for.

When you start giving an honest presentation, I may apologize. I am still not seeing it from you. Come back when you get an original thought.


How the heck would a dolt like you know anything about scholarship???

I am not relying on canned arguments based on bad history. Your whole spiel is just parroting the same crap David Barton and the Wallbuilders have been putting out for years.
David Barton: master of myth and misinformation
[Unlike yourself, I give links that have actual significance to the discussion]

I have informed you several times already that separation of church and state predated the nation and you ignore it, lather, rinse and repeat the same junk.

What I provided was my notes from reading the book.

Liar. Its a typical ploy from people who use online sources of ill repute to claim they are just copying it from a book.


4. "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."

Link?

Check my prior post concerning you being spanked by Roger Williams.

Since almost every colony established or supported a particular church, your contention is nonsense on the face of it.

Except two which made a special point of not doing that! The ones whose influence led to the creation of the Establishment Clause in the first place. You keep ignoring their existence as if it will go away.

You really don't have a goddamn clue about the history you are allegedly (but not really) quoting from.

Publiceye.org??
That is your source?
That is who you are quoting???

1. PRA is supported by a number of progressive and liberal activists, including Anne Braden of the Southern Organizing Committee, and Suzanne Pharr of the Highlander Research Center. Pharr has written that PRA "sets the standard for researchers and political analysts of integrity," and describes the group's research as "thorough, thoughtful, carefully researched, and presented within a broad context of understanding of the complex relationships and activities of the Right." [2]

Stanley Kurtz of the conservative magazine National Review described PRA's researchers as "conspiracy mongers" for a 1994 report on the religious right, and claims that PRA used guilt by association techniques to associate conservative Christians with theocratic Dominionism.[4] PRA responded to Kurtz by stating that the report was "a serious study of the Dominionist Christian Reconstructionist movement."[5
Political Research Associates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. Founded in 1981 by Chip Berlet (who is also a member of the National Lawyers Guild) and political scientist Jean Hardisty, Political Research Associates (PRA) bills itself as a "progressive think tank" that monitors what it terms "the threat posed to human rights by oppressive and authoritarian movements and trends in the United States." In its effort to help "build the movement for progressive social change," PRA studies "the full spectrum of the U.S. Political Right -- from ultraconservatives in the electoral arena to paramilitary organizations to supremacist groups." The slogan on PRA's website reads: "Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers." Professing a desire to create "a more just and inclusive democratic society," PRA "seeks to advance progressive thinking and action by providing research-based information, analysis, and referrals."

PRA identifies its two overriding agendas as: (a) boosting "dialectical materialism" -- a doctrine based on the writings of Marx and Engels, and elaborated upon by Plekhanov, Lenin, and Stalin; and (b) promoting "progressive internationalism" to thwart the successes of capitalism. Toward these ends, PRA produces a wide variety of educational and analytical resources like the following:...

PRA’s worldview deems it axiomatic that "Islamophobia" pervades academia, and that it stems from hateful, xenophobic tendencies inherent in American culture. By contrast, the organization ascribes anti-Semitism largely to the provocations of "the issues of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, of United States policy in relation to that conflict, and of U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast and surrounding regions."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6505

3. PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates

OMG!


Your link was a good as a notarized statement ascertaining that you neither read nor think.

 

[del]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
You friggin libs piss me off. I want what the amendment says. I want government completely neutral with regards to religion.
I don't want a state religion, but if I want to offer a prayer before a football game, you have no right to prohibit that. To refuse me the right to pray, is "prohibit(ing) the free exercise thereof", is it not?

who stopped you from praying?

 

[del]

Go back and read it...than you'll have another item not to apologize for.

When you start giving an honest presentation, I may apologize. I am still not seeing it from you. Come back when you get an original thought.


How the heck would a dolt like you know anything about scholarship???

I am not relying on canned arguments based on bad history. Your whole spiel is just parroting the same crap David Barton and the Wallbuilders have been putting out for years.
David Barton: master of myth and misinformation
[Unlike yourself, I give links that have actual significance to the discussion]

I have informed you several times already that separation of church and state predated the nation and you ignore it, lather, rinse and repeat the same junk.

What I provided was my notes from reading the book.

Liar. Its a typical ploy from people who use online sources of ill repute to claim they are just copying it from a book.


4. "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."

Link?

Check my prior post concerning you being spanked by Roger Williams.

Since almost every colony established or supported a particular church, your contention is nonsense on the face of it.

Except two which made a special point of not doing that! The ones whose influence led to the creation of the Establishment Clause in the first place. You keep ignoring their existence as if it will go away.

You really don't have a goddamn clue about the history you are allegedly (but not really) quoting from.

Publiceye.org??
That is your source?
That is who you are quoting???

1. PRA is supported by a number of progressive and liberal activists, including Anne Braden of the Southern Organizing Committee, and Suzanne Pharr of the Highlander Research Center. Pharr has written that PRA "sets the standard for researchers and political analysts of integrity," and describes the group's research as "thorough, thoughtful, carefully researched, and presented within a broad context of understanding of the complex relationships and activities of the Right." [2]

Stanley Kurtz of the conservative magazine National Review described PRA's researchers as "conspiracy mongers" for a 1994 report on the religious right, and claims that PRA used guilt by association techniques to associate conservative Christians with theocratic Dominionism.[4] PRA responded to Kurtz by stating that the report was "a serious study of the Dominionist Christian Reconstructionist movement."[5
Political Research Associates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. Founded in 1981 by Chip Berlet (who is also a member of the National Lawyers Guild) and political scientist Jean Hardisty, Political Research Associates (PRA) bills itself as a "progressive think tank" that monitors what it terms "the threat posed to human rights by oppressive and authoritarian movements and trends in the United States." In its effort to help "build the movement for progressive social change," PRA studies "the full spectrum of the U.S. Political Right -- from ultraconservatives in the electoral arena to paramilitary organizations to supremacist groups." The slogan on PRA's website reads: "Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers." Professing a desire to create "a more just and inclusive democratic society," PRA "seeks to advance progressive thinking and action by providing research-based information, analysis, and referrals."

PRA identifies its two overriding agendas as: (a) boosting "dialectical materialism" -- a doctrine based on the writings of Marx and Engels, and elaborated upon by Plekhanov, Lenin, and Stalin; and (b) promoting "progressive internationalism" to thwart the successes of capitalism. Toward these ends, PRA produces a wide variety of educational and analytical resources like the following:...

PRA’s worldview deems it axiomatic that "Islamophobia" pervades academia, and that it stems from hateful, xenophobic tendencies inherent in American culture. By contrast, the organization ascribes anti-Semitism largely to the provocations of "the issues of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, of United States policy in relation to that conflict, and of U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast and surrounding regions."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6505

3. PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates

OMG!


Your link was a good as a notarized statement ascertaining that you neither read nor think.

 

[catzmeow]

Well, actually many liberals do give the impression that they want the complete divorcement of all religion from public life. That does not by any means mean all or even most, but there are some liberals that appear to want religion completely eliminated from life outside of a closet.

Immie

I want government out of the religion business. A federal agency shouldn't be sponsoring prayer breakfasts, for instance. I'm not a liberal, but I lived in what is essentially the only theocracy left in the U.S. for 10 years (Utah). Until you've lived as a member of a minority religion in a theocracy, most Americans don't understand why separation of church/state is important.

 

[Lokiate]

No one is crying about civil expression of religion, Koala. Go read more carefully.

Except for the people who are arguing against Separation of Church and State. They are using civil expression of religion as their examples. Not realizing that it is not the divorcement from all religion which typifies the separation but just the avoidance of sectarianism.

SCOTUS still doesn't want to touch the subject with a 10' pole.

Well, actually many liberals do give the impression that they want the complete divorcement of all religion from public life. That does not by any means mean all or even most, but there are some liberals that appear to want religion completely eliminated from life outside of a closet.

Immie

Those people are called antitheists. They're assholes. Most of the 'fears' stem from an overreaction to a percieved threat to their way of life. Christians have more to fear from radical Islam, and explosive polar bears from Mars, than they do the average Atheist.

 

[Immanuel]

Well, actually many liberals do give the impression that they want the complete divorcement of all religion from public life. That does not by any means mean all or even most, but there are some liberals that appear to want religion completely eliminated from life outside of a closet.

Immie

I want government out of the religion business. A federal agency shouldn't be sponsoring prayer breakfasts, for instance. I'm not a liberal, but I lived in what is essentially the only theocracy left in the U.S. for 10 years (Utah). Until you've lived as a member of a minority religion in a theocracy, most Americans don't understand why separation of church/state is important.

I don't want government in the religion business either, but I don't want someone like Jake telling me I have to go hide in a closet to practice my religion either.

And as I have stated before many times, I am very much in support of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. The last thing in the world that I want is the government dictating to me who's God I must worship even if it is some denomination of my own.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Except for the people who are arguing against Separation of Church and State. They are using civil expression of religion as their examples. Not realizing that it is not the divorcement from all religion which typifies the separation but just the avoidance of sectarianism.

SCOTUS still doesn't want to touch the subject with a 10' pole.

Well, actually many liberals do give the impression that they want the complete divorcement of all religion from public life. That does not by any means mean all or even most, but there are some liberals that appear to want religion completely eliminated from life outside of a closet.

Immie

Those people are called antitheists. They're assholes. Most of the 'fears' stem from an overreaction to a percieved threat to their way of life. Christians have more to fear from radical Islam, and explosive polar bears from Mars, than they do the average Atheist.

I would not disagree with that. However, like many Christians atheists can be extremely annoying when they try to force their ideas on others.

Immie

 

[Gadawg73]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
You friggin libs piss me off. I want what the amendment says. I want government completely neutral with regards to religion.
I don't want a state religion, but if I want to offer a prayer before a football game, you have no right to prohibit that. To refuse me the right to pray, is "prohibit(ing) the free exercise thereof", is it not?

Quit fibbing to us.
NO ONE stops anyone from praying at any time. Pray all you want. No one will stop you.
Offer all the prayers you want. Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, all you want.
Government can not SPONSOR your prayer.
My boy prayed with other prayers before and after EVERY DAMN FOOTBALL game he ever played in high school. They still do.
You can damn well pray at any time you want so quit the BS.
I am a conservative.
BTW, why do you want religion in government? What purpose does it serve?
Is your faith so shallow that you have to have government endorse and support it?

 

[Gadawg73]

Lonestar, The US Constitution mandates freedom of religion.
How is EVERY religion free if one religion has vast influence and is in government and the others do not?
That was the Founders intent. NO religion in government because if you allow one in and then politicians pander to the voters for votes the others may suffer.
We have been fighting this forever. Ask the Jews. They strongly favor seperation of church and state.
They strung up an innocent one here and the church fully supported it.
And that is why we need seperation of church and state. That wan EVERY RELIGION is free.

Well you're wrong and there is an abundant supply of historical documents that proves it.

I am wrong that religous people with their influence in government led to the lynching of an innocent Jew?
You are blind to any facts Lonestar. Your religous beliefs blind you.
You are EXHIBIT A why the Founders wanted seperation of state. They faced blind religous ideologues like you, fought and defeated them.

 

[Lokiate]

Well, actually many liberals do give the impression that they want the complete divorcement of all religion from public life. That does not by any means mean all or even most, but there are some liberals that appear to want religion completely eliminated from life outside of a closet.

Immie

Those people are called antitheists. They're assholes. Most of the 'fears' stem from an overreaction to a percieved threat to their way of life. Christians have more to fear from radical Islam, and explosive polar bears from Mars, than they do the average Atheist.

I would not disagree with that. However, like many Christians atheists can be extremely annoying when they try to force their ideas on others.

Immie

I know, but occasional annoyance is part of living in a "melting pot" society. Everyone thinks they're right, everyone wants others to see things their way, and everyone gets pissed when they hit the wall. As long as that doesn't result in violence, or forced segregation, it's not as big a deal as some make it out to be.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar, The US Constitution mandates freedom of religion.
How is EVERY religion free if one religion has vast influence and is in government and the others do not?
That was the Founders intent. NO religion in government because if you allow one in and then politicians pander to the voters for votes the others may suffer.
We have been fighting this forever. Ask the Jews. They strongly favor seperation of church and state.
They strung up an innocent one here and the church fully supported it.
And that is why we need seperation of church and state. That wan EVERY RELIGION is free.

Well you're wrong and there is an abundant supply of historical documents that proves it.

I am wrong that religous people with their influence in government led to the lynching of an innocent Jew?
You are blind to any facts Lonestar. Your religous beliefs blind you.
You are EXHIBIT A why the Founders wanted seperation of state. They faced blind religous ideologues like you, fought and defeated them.

The Founders, none supported the notion of separation of church and state. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis...


If you would like to challenge that statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this letter – that any founder ever used the phrase 'separation of church and state.'

If Jefferson were alive today he would be viewed as the religious right.

Jefferson not only went to church as president. He did so inside the House of Representatives. That's right. This man who supposedly believed in an eternal wall of separation between church and state regularly attended church services inside Congress. The church services were presided over by every Protestant denomination. And this was really Jefferson's idea of separation of church and state – meaning no establishment of a state sect."

"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...

The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

William Hubbs Rehnquist, JD, former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court at the time of the quotation who later became Chief Justice, wrote in his June 4, 1985 dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree

George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, §1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words 'so help me God.' The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.' The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate. The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim 'a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.'

The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: 'Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.' And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection.

These actions of our First President and Congress and the Marshall Court were not idiosyncratic; they reflected the beliefs of the period. Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality."

Antonin Scalia, LLB, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote in his June 27, 2005 dissenting opinion in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, actually many liberals do give the impression that they want the complete divorcement of all religion from public life. That does not by any means mean all or even most, but there are some liberals that appear to want religion completely eliminated from life outside of a closet.

Immie

I want government out of the religion business. A federal agency shouldn't be sponsoring prayer breakfasts, for instance. I'm not a liberal, but I lived in what is essentially the only theocracy left in the U.S. for 10 years (Utah). Until you've lived as a member of a minority religion in a theocracy, most Americans don't understand why separation of church/state is important.

I don't want government in the religion business either, but I don't want someone like Jake telling me I have to go hide in a closet to practice my religion either.

And as I have stated before many times, I am very much in support of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. The last thing in the world that I want is the government dictating to me who's God I must worship even if it is some denomination of my own.

Immie

Tell me where I said you had "to go hide in a closet to practice" your "religion." I said you cannot disrupt educational activity or infringe on your neighbor in a state-supported classroom. No one is saying you can't pray, Immie.

 

[Immanuel]

I want government out of the religion business. A federal agency shouldn't be sponsoring prayer breakfasts, for instance. I'm not a liberal, but I lived in what is essentially the only theocracy left in the U.S. for 10 years (Utah). Until you've lived as a member of a minority religion in a theocracy, most Americans don't understand why separation of church/state is important.

I don't want government in the religion business either, but I don't want someone like Jake telling me I have to go hide in a closet to practice my religion either.

And as I have stated before many times, I am very much in support of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. The last thing in the world that I want is the government dictating to me who's God I must worship even if it is some denomination of my own.

Immie

Tell me where I said you had "to go hide in a closet to practice" your "religion." I said you cannot disrupt educational activity or infringe on your neighbor in a state-supported classroom. No one is saying you can't pray, Immie.

What you said was:

No, if my brother is teaching class in a state-supported classroom, you wads do not get to witness to the classroom. You get to pray anytime as long as you do not (1) disrupt educational process or (2) infringe on others' rights to not hear your nonsense.

Grow up, kids.

You did not qualify #2 in any manner whatsoever. This states that those who would exercise their right to free speech cannot do so in the hearing of those who would oppose it... i.e. forcing them into a "closet" in order to exercise their right. There were no qualifications attached to #2.

I don't really believe that is what you meant because I know a little bit about you through your posts, but that IS what you said.

For the record, the 1st amendment guarantees all of us the right to free speech. There is no such thing as a right not the hear the free speech of someone else. If we want to have our right to free speech guaranteed, then we had darn well better be willing to defend the same right of the jackass that offends us.

If you don't want to hear that jackass then it is you who must get up and move. You cannot force him to move or shut up.

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can pray quietly or silently in your seat without annoying your neighbor, Immie, so there is no need to go to a closet. On the other hand, those who do not wish to participate should not have to go to a closet either. The free exercise clause in the 1st Amendment does not empower you to infringe in a state-supported class on others who do not want to hear it. Your right to exercise stops when it infringes on the greater right to not be around such behavior in a tax-supported classroom.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The right to free speech is not absolute. Limits do exist. State-supported and -directed prayer in the public classroom is prohibited. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is prohibited. Terroristic threats are prohibited. Free speech is not permitted in the work place. Yes, there are limitations.

 

[Texanmike]

The right to free speech is not absoluteLimits do exist. State-supported and -directed prayer in the public classroom is prohibited. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is prohibited. Terroristic threats are prohibited. Free speech is not permitted in the work place. Yes, there are limitations.

Fixed it for you. Editing anothers post is breaking board rules-Meister

Mike