Mittens say separation of church and state goes too far


And from your link

Q71. "I cannot find anywhere in the Constitution that refers to separation of church and state."

A. Though many people assume the 1st Amendment sets out some separation, the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase "wall of separation" appears to have been coined by Jefferson, in speaking of the religious liberties granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Madison, however, said that there is a line between church and state, not a wall — the distinction may or may not be significant.

In practice the separation is more theoretical than actual. In a truly separate society, we would not invoke the name of God on our currency, nor would we speak so highly of our Judeo-Christian values. But we do — the fact of the matter is, completely separating religion and government is probably impossible, so long as religion is an important part of the lives of the citizenry. The best we can hope for, and what I think the Constitution tries to protect, is to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of religious belief — that there be no religion litmus test.

Maybe you should also look at SCOTUS cases...

Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

And the SCOTUS has never been wrong or stuck its nose where it didn't belong before??

The 1st amendment is very fucking clear. The sentence is not fucking hard to understand....
 
both him and Madison had something to do with what the constitution says dont you think?

And the vast majority who also helped write it, was against what he said.
He sent the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association without the words (separation of church and state) but kept it in his own draft.

That is incorrect. The descriptive wall of separation was definitely in the letter he sent.

.
 
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney believes that "some" Americans have taken the separation of church and state too far, "well beyond its original meaning."

In an interview released Tuesday with the Washington National Cathedral's magazine, Cathedral Age, Romney said those who "seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God" aren't acting in line with the Founders' intent.

The separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, but Congress and the courts have debated the practical extent of that separation since its founding.

Romney said the Founders didn't intend for "the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God, 'and in God, we do indeed trust."

From the OP link.

Sounds like Romney should read or reread the Constitution. The founding fathers provided a "Godless" Constitution, which clearly separates church and state. "Under God" is only contained in the last revision of the Pledge of Allegiance, which is not a founding or governing document. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally written in 1892, and the words "under God" weren't added until 1954 during the Eisenhower Administration.

Romney's scary religious roots are showing. What's next, another amendment to enshrine God in the Constitution? Religious nuts would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible?



Incorrect.

The entire thing was acknowledged to be authored under the watchful eye of the 'Lord' - and the work was attributed to His calendar.

And of course, the supernaturally-endowed unalienable rights of man were detailed in no uncertain terms in our first founding document.

When you think about it, America is a defacto theocracy.
 
Mitt Romney: Church State Separation Taken Too Far By Some

Great news for the anti-American rw's who already hate our Constitution.

Of course it goes too far. The modern version of SCS goes back to the majority opinion written by a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR. Hugo Black grew up with a KKK bigoted hatred for "Papists" and when he got his chance he decided to interpret the 1st Amendment to include removing every vestige of Christianity from the public view. The party of no morality or family values carried it a couple of steps further by ordering a half century old monument to Korean War Veterans bulldozed because some atheist was offended by the 40 ft Cross.
 
The term "separation of church and state" is a rhetorical shortcut. For those who keep demanding to be shown those words in the Constitution, I would caution against setting the bar so high as you probably use rhetorical shortcuts for a great many things that are not in the Constitution verbatim.

"Separation of church and state" was already a well used expression in the United States by the time Alexis de Tocqueville visited our nation and asked around about that very thing:

On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the different sects; I sought especially the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different creeds and are especially interested in their duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I was more particularly brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and explained my doubts. I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 17


In the chapter, he expresses over and over again that what gives religion its vitality in the US is its separation from government.

.
 
Last edited:
The Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."​

More: The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity
 
More from Democracy in America that serves as a warning to modern day religious Americas:

The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity; cut but the bonds that restrain it, and it will rise once more.

.
 
Mitt Romney: Church State Separation Taken Too Far By Some

Great news for the anti-American rw's who already hate our Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Show me where that 'separation of church and state' is in the Constitution... It keeps the government from having a church of the United States and from preventing you from worshiping how you wish.... But nothing where there can be no mention of religion in our government, etc...

idiot


Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.
 
The Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."​

More: The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

This tired old crap.

States had state sponsored religions up until the 1830's and they were never challenged.

In some cases it was one religion, in others..it was just religion.

The Constitution limited the Federal Government....never intended to limit states.

The Treaty of Tripoli is not the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Since the U.S. wasn't founded on the Christian religion, it really doesn't matter if Obama is a Muslim. You know, freedom of religion, and all that...
 
The Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."​

More: The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

This tired old crap.

States had state sponsored religions up until the 1830's and they were never challenged.

In some cases it was one religion, in others..it was just religion.

The Constitution limited the Federal Government....never intended to limit states.

The Treaty of Tripoli is not the Constitution.

There are two morons in one thread who think the Treaty of Tripoli was part of the Constitution!
 
Since the U.S. wasn't founded on the Christian religion, it really doesn't matter if Obama is a Muslim. You know, freedom of religion, and all that...

I would agree.

If he were a conservative muslim....running against his twin (the moron in office), the stupid, know nothing, arrogant, Christian......

I'd vote for the muslim.

He does not need to go to church with me....not what I elected him for.
 
Since the U.S. wasn't founded on the Christian religion, it really doesn't matter if Obama is a Muslim. You know, freedom of religion, and all that...



Actually, we have no greater Foundational tenet than that of unalienable rights supernaturally granted to us by the 'Creator,' which in the context of all of these wealthy white men who made it happen was of course a specific reference to Yahweh.

When you think about it, we are a defacto theocracy.


See ya in church!
 
And from your link

Q71. "I cannot find anywhere in the Constitution that refers to separation of church and state."

A. Though many people assume the 1st Amendment sets out some separation, the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase "wall of separation" appears to have been coined by Jefferson, in speaking of the religious liberties granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Madison, however, said that there is a line between church and state, not a wall — the distinction may or may not be significant.

In practice the separation is more theoretical than actual. In a truly separate society, we would not invoke the name of God on our currency, nor would we speak so highly of our Judeo-Christian values. But we do — the fact of the matter is, completely separating religion and government is probably impossible, so long as religion is an important part of the lives of the citizenry. The best we can hope for, and what I think the Constitution tries to protect, is to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of religious belief — that there be no religion litmus test.

Maybe you should also look at SCOTUS cases...

Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

And the SCOTUS has never been wrong or stuck its nose where it didn't belong before??

The 1st amendment is very fucking clear. The sentence is not fucking hard to understand....

The SCOTUS has stuck it's nose where it doesn't belong more often than Cyranno de Bergerac giving head.
 

Forum List

Back
Top