CDZ Of the Church and State

[Holos]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

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

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

 

[DGS49]

The First Amendment is nothing more than a statement by the founders that the U.S., unlike most other countries at the time, would NOT have a formal national religion. Contrast this with the Church of England, the national religion of the U.K.

The people who wrote the First Amendment started all of their formal meetings with a "deist" prayer, and saw nothing contradictory in the practice. In fact, Congress continues that practice to this very day.

The "wall of separation between Church and State" came up later.

 

[Holos]

The First Amendment is nothing more than a statement by the founders that the U.S., unlike most other countries at the time, would NOT have a formal national religion.

Could you please provide an analysis of the evidence for your claim that there is Constitutional denial of formal religion so your perspective can be appropriately assimilated? I am assuming the evidence is the Amendment itself. However, there is no improving discussion accesible, if there is no detailed analysis, even if the analysis be only brief.

I would offer as a suggestion a closer inspection of the word "respect" within the First Amendment. "Spect" also coming from Latin signifies "part", "piece", "fragment", "shard", and is completed in the English language with the word "spectrum" (a total unified continuum of multiple determinate specs with two very definite delimitating polar extremeties for total containment).

The First Amendment simply states there shall be no congressional law "respecting" an establishment of religion. My analytical conclusion from that is that once a religion is truly effectively established (as in a book or a set of consented cohesive laws) there is nothing the congress can do to make the religion better or modified in anyway, especifically because the congress should be improved by sources other than those already included within the ongoing progressing establishment of Statal order.

Are you able to add?

 

[Fishlore]

Check out the prohibition on religious tests for public office.

In its early phase, the Constituton refered to the federal government. The prohibition on establishment applied only there. It was with the passage of the XIV Amendment that Constitutional prohibitions on establishment became extended to the states. Most states disestablished before than time. The last, I believe, was Massachusetts in 1830.

 

[Holos]

Check out the prohibition on religious tests for public office.

In its early phase, the Constituton refered to the federal government. The prohibition on establishment applied only there. It was with the passage of the XIV Amendment that Constitutional prohibitions on establishment became extended to the states. Most states disestablished before than time. The last, I believe, was Massachusetts in 1830.

Can you provide any verifiable references?

 

[Agit8r]

Check out the prohibition on religious tests for public office.

In its early phase, the Constituton refered to the federal government. The prohibition on establishment applied only there. It was with the passage of the XIV Amendment that Constitutional prohibitions on establishment became extended to the states. Most states disestablished before than time. The last, I believe, was Massachusetts in 1830.

Can you provide any verifiable references?

"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"

--from Article 6

 

[Agit8r]

' an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sactity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which, would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected... The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House agst it, by successfully contending that the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world '
-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'

 

[Holos]

Check out the prohibition on religious tests for public office.

In its early phase, the Constituton refered to the federal government. The prohibition on establishment applied only there. It was with the passage of the XIV Amendment that Constitutional prohibitions on establishment became extended to the states. Most states disestablished before than time. The last, I believe, was Massachusetts in 1830.

Can you provide any verifiable references?

"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"

--from Article 6

Fishlore referred to an Amendment which not only supplemented without need what had already been made clear but also evaded contributing with their own personal perspective for any possible debate.

Now I am forced to question you, Agit8r, about your blatant infringement of intellectual property by adding even less than the absence of your personal perspective. Don't confuse your participation with a breach, because there is no corruption of the source, but nonetheless it is inappropriate because it detracts from the sequentialist conduct of which a constructive and productive debate can be made more accessible to other interested participants.

What Senators or Representatives have at all been mentioned? What State Legislatures have been mentioned? Again, your post, as Fishlore's, only reiterates my points that indeed religion works for and also within the State, but largely neglects my requests to know the actual problems that could arise with religion as it might come to be innapropriately involved within politics (and therefore more than a single amendment having had to be included in the Constitution).

I am still interested in debating as a problem might be presented. Maybe the problem isn't to be exposed by Liberals or Democrats and either Republicans or Conservatives might feel the problems with religion to be more greatly transgressing to their interests.

Based on your following post, altogether with a reference completely irrelevant, after the post in which you included an excerpt from Article 6, it seems you have no grasp about what religion is.

So tell me, what do you think religion is? You are free to provide your own analysis completely apart from mine so we can actually enter into a debate or discussion as it comes to be appropriate.

 

[Tennyson]

Check out the prohibition on religious tests for public office.

In its early phase, the Constituton refered to the federal government. The prohibition on establishment applied only there. It was with the passage of the XIV Amendment that Constitutional prohibitions on establishment became extended to the states. Most states disestablished before than time. The last, I believe, was Massachusetts in 1830.

The no religious tests of the Sixth Amendment was to protect Protestant denominations that may have been excluded by a test designed to their detriment. Ellsworth argument during the debates:

If oaths were in favour of either congregationalists, presbyterians, episcopalions, baptists, or quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any publick office; and thus degrade them from the rank of freemen.​

 

[Tennyson]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

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

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

Far too much of the Constitution is biblically based to be considered secular.

 

[Holos]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

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

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

Far too much of the Constitution is biblically based to be considered secular.

Can you provide me an example, including, perhaps, passages of the Constitution and also passages of the Bible?

 

[Tennyson]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

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

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

Far too much of the Constitution is biblically based to be considered secular.

Can you provide me an example, including, perhaps, passages of the Constitution and also passages of the Bible?

Here are just a couple of examples:

The structure of the separation of powers. That came via Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, which Montesquieu took from Isaiah 33:22, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” Madison referenced Montesquieu in Federalists No. 47as the source.

Article I, Section 7 the Sunday excepted clause.

Article VII. Franklin had the wording changed to reflect Jesus.

Article III, Section 3 the basis and criteria of the treason clause is identical to Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause mirrors Deuteronomy 17:6.

The Fourth Amendment's negative liberty clause comes from Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, and they comes from Leviticus 25:10.

The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause comes from Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The list goes on and is pretty extensive. Going back to the Saxons, English common law was heavily influenced and based on the Bible. Our current laws, for example, are biblically based and the Bible verse was inserted into the laws during the colonial era.

 

[Holos]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

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

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

Far too much of the Constitution is biblically based to be considered secular.

Can you provide me an example, including, perhaps, passages of the Constitution and also passages of the Bible?

Here are just a couple of examples:

The structure of the separation of powers. That came via Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, which Montesquieu took from Isaiah 33:22, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” Madison referenced Montesquieu in Federalists No. 47as the source.

Article I, Section 7 the Sunday excepted clause.

Article VII. Franklin had the wording changed to reflect Jesus.

Article III, Section 3 the basis and criteria of the treason clause is identical to Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause mirrors Deuteronomy 17:6.

The Fourth Amendment's negative liberty clause comes from Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, and they comes from Leviticus 25:10.

The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause comes from Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The list goes on and is pretty extensive. Going back to the Saxons, English common law was heavily influenced and based on the Bible. Our current laws, for example, are biblically based and the Bible verse was inserted into the laws during the colonial era.

I thought we were going to have an interesting discussion when I started reading your post, as I can understand the political nature of the biblical prophets.

But then when I started reading your share of Constitution excerpts and how, in your opinion, they relate to the Bible I quickly realized you don't really know or understand the Bible.

After I verified Article I and VII to consider your proposal of cohesion I was truly obliged to refrain from verifying the rest of your proposals.

In other words, if you can't understand the beginning of the Old Testament and apparently mock the main character of the New Testament, then the further mention of Deutoronomy, not too advanced of a part from the very beginning of the whole work, simply warns me of an insistent baseless provocation, which of course I am not interested in because of the extent and influence of the Book if taken seriously as the accomplishment that it actually is.

 

[Tennyson]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

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

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

Far too much of the Constitution is biblically based to be considered secular.

Can you provide me an example, including, perhaps, passages of the Constitution and also passages of the Bible?

Here are just a couple of examples:

The structure of the separation of powers. That came via Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, which Montesquieu took from Isaiah 33:22, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” Madison referenced Montesquieu in Federalists No. 47as the source.

Article I, Section 7 the Sunday excepted clause.

Article VII. Franklin had the wording changed to reflect Jesus.

Article III, Section 3 the basis and criteria of the treason clause is identical to Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause mirrors Deuteronomy 17:6.

The Fourth Amendment's negative liberty clause comes from Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, and they comes from Leviticus 25:10.

The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause comes from Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The list goes on and is pretty extensive. Going back to the Saxons, English common law was heavily influenced and based on the Bible. Our current laws, for example, are biblically based and the Bible verse was inserted into the laws during the colonial era.

I thought we were going to have an interesting discussion when I started reading your post, as I can understand the political nature of the biblical prophets.

But then when I started reading your share of Constitution excerpts and how, in your opinion, they relate to the Bible I quickly realized you don't really know or understand the Bible.

After I verified Article I and VII to consider your proposal of cohesion I was truly obliged to refrain from verifying the rest of your proposals.

In other words, if you can't understand the beginning of the Old Testament and apparently mock the main character of the New Testament, then the further mention of Deutoronomy, not too advanced of a part from the very beginning of the whole work, simply warns me of an insistent baseless provocation, which of course I am not interested in because of the extent and influence of the Book if taken seriously as the accomplishment that it actually is.

I am having a hard time understanding the relevance of your post vis-a-vis mine.

My post had nothing to do with biblical prophets.

I understand the Bible as well any anyone, which is another discussion not related to this. My post is factually accurate regardless of an understanding of the Bible as it is based on the history of English common law and American law and the influence of biblically based English common law on the founders and the structure and some articles of the Constitution.

An understanding of the Old Testament is not a perquisite to American legal history.

I did no mock the “main character in the New Testament.”

You are responding as if you are responding to a different post other than mine.

You are welcome to make an argument that the substance of my post in not correct .

 

[Holos]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

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

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

Far too much of the Constitution is biblically based to be considered secular.

Can you provide me an example, including, perhaps, passages of the Constitution and also passages of the Bible?

Here are just a couple of examples:

The structure of the separation of powers. That came via Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, which Montesquieu took from Isaiah 33:22, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” Madison referenced Montesquieu in Federalists No. 47as the source.

Article I, Section 7 the Sunday excepted clause.

Article VII. Franklin had the wording changed to reflect Jesus.

Article III, Section 3 the basis and criteria of the treason clause is identical to Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause mirrors Deuteronomy 17:6.

The Fourth Amendment's negative liberty clause comes from Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, and they comes from Leviticus 25:10.

The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause comes from Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The list goes on and is pretty extensive. Going back to the Saxons, English common law was heavily influenced and based on the Bible. Our current laws, for example, are biblically based and the Bible verse was inserted into the laws during the colonial era.

I thought we were going to have an interesting discussion when I started reading your post, as I can understand the political nature of the biblical prophets.

But then when I started reading your share of Constitution excerpts and how, in your opinion, they relate to the Bible I quickly realized you don't really know or understand the Bible.

After I verified Article I and VII to consider your proposal of cohesion I was truly obliged to refrain from verifying the rest of your proposals.

In other words, if you can't understand the beginning of the Old Testament and apparently mock the main character of the New Testament, then the further mention of Deutoronomy, not too advanced of a part from the very beginning of the whole work, simply warns me of an insistent baseless provocation, which of course I am not interested in because of the extent and influence of the Book if taken seriously as the accomplishment that it actually is.

I am having a hard time understanding the relevance of your post vis-a-vis mine.

My post had nothing to do with biblical prophets.

I understand the Bible as well any anyone, which is another discussion not related to this. My post is factually accurate regardless of an understanding of the Bible as it is based on the history of English common law and American law and the influence of biblically based English common law on the founders and the structure and some articles of the Constitution.

An understanding of the Old Testament is not a perquisite to American legal history.

I did no mock the “main character in the New Testament.”

You are responding as if you are responding to a different post other than mine.

You are welcome to make an argument that the substance of my post in not correct .

It seems you, Tennyson, suddenly got deranged about the premises to be discussed in the thread.

The beginning assumption was that we already have integrated in our lives the history of American Law and that according to our necessary consensus of the facts therein exposed, concluded and improved, we could continue to proceed with its inviting development.

Therefore I thought the First Amendment would be interesting to exemplify and discuss how after a very stable and provisional foundation there is still greater and increasing room for improvement, perhaps by previously unexamined religious standards instead of already well known political standards; laws altogether recognized from both forms of established organizational sources.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The money's got God on it. If we truly understood and embraced secularism we would never have judges putting religious symbols in courts. Judges. If our judges don't comprehend the value of the separation of church and state, how can we expect our ordinary citizens to understand it?

 

[Holos]

The money's got God on it. If we truly understood and embraced secularism we would never have judges putting religious symbols in courts. Judges. If our judges don't comprehend the value of the separation of church and state, how can we expect our ordinary citizens to understand it?

Good question.

I would say God comes before money, according to the Bible. What reference are you using to base your statement that it is money who got God?

You are telling me citizens have to first pay attention to Judges before acknowledging Genesis?

 

[FA_Q2]

There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.

As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).

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

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.

Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.

Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".

If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".

It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.

What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?

Far too much of the Constitution is biblically based to be considered secular.

Can you provide me an example, including, perhaps, passages of the Constitution and also passages of the Bible?

Here are just a couple of examples:

The structure of the separation of powers. That came via Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, which Montesquieu took from Isaiah 33:22, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” Madison referenced Montesquieu in Federalists No. 47as the source.

Article I, Section 7 the Sunday excepted clause.

Article VII. Franklin had the wording changed to reflect Jesus.

Article III, Section 3 the basis and criteria of the treason clause is identical to Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause mirrors Deuteronomy 17:6.

The Fourth Amendment's negative liberty clause comes from Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, and they comes from Leviticus 25:10.

The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause comes from Deuteronomy 19:15-18.

The list goes on and is pretty extensive. Going back to the Saxons, English common law was heavily influenced and based on the Bible. Our current laws, for example, are biblically based and the Bible verse was inserted into the laws during the colonial era.

Just because the precepts of our government are based on biblical concepts or passages does not mean that our government is not secular. The sheer fact that the large majority of our population is christian means that, by extension, Christianity is going to have a lot of influence over governmental structure. That influence does not make the government 'Cristian' or bar it from being secular.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

HOLOS SAID:

‘"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof;"

By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.

It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.’

Incorrect.

It is beyond dispute that it was the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation that church and state remain separate:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.” (McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 (1948))

Although government is secular in its function and authority, Establishment Clause jurisprudence does not prohibit all manner of religious expression in government, nor was it the intent of the Framers to prohibit or remove all religion from government; rather, the Establishment Clause ensures that the political process and political participation not be adversely effected by excessive government involvement with religion:

“The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. [Government e]ndorsement [of religion] sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” (Lynch v. Donnelly (1984))

Conservatives, unfortunately and for the most part, are in conflict with this settled and accepted Frist Amendment jurisprudence – social conservatives and Christian fundamentalists in particular.

Most on the right, for example, attempt to advance the wrongheaded notion that the Establishment Clause applies solely to Congress, when in fact the cause law applies to state and local governments as well; or the ridiculous position that the Establishment Clause merely prohibits government from favoring one religion over another while allowing religious majorities to codify religious dogma into secular law.

Liberals and democrats, in contrast, follow settled and accepted First Amendment jurisprudence, with the correct understanding that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the First Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The money's got God on it. If we truly understood and embraced secularism we would never have judges putting religious symbols in courts. Judges. If our judges don't comprehend the value of the separation of church and state, how can we expect our ordinary citizens to understand it?

And this would be an example of appropriate religious expression in government consistent with Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Such references to a deity on coinage or displayed in a court of law does not violate the First Amendment.