CDZ Of the Church and State

[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?

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.

The Ten Commandments are OK, maybe, cause they starred in a Cecille B. DeMille picture once upon a time, so they're "cultural" symbols not "religious" symbols, or maybe they're not OK, because they don't have a sufficiently secular setting to make their cultural context clear, blah, blah, blah. And I will gladly pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

Let's say you are an American who proudly upholds their right to "freedom from religion"? How are you supposed to feel, going into a court of law, like something out of My Cousin Vinny, only to see your right to freedom from religion violated by the presence of religious symbols in the court building? The only symbol I want to see is Blind Justice.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute..."
- JFK

 

[Holos]

Thank you.

I hadn't realized separation of Church and State actually meant proper acknowledgement and distinction of each.

To me the expression was just an instruction that we should keep each to their own jurisprudence or study, and not mix them in any such way, because putting them together would obfuscate our comprehension of both.

But apparently that is not what separation really means in this intellectual context. It seems, as most posters have already shared, that politics and religion are in fact very closely related in the same socially knit fabric. Separation, therefore means only distinguishment of origins, relations and opportunities.

I had not realized that before, as I centered my observations through material empiricism; but shifting my focus to intellectual empiricism I am now able to identify details and associations within empirical material objects.

Would the next step be to produce more empirical intellectual material to also forward this understanding and propulsion greater and appropriate political engagement?

 

[Baron]

The USA was founded by Christians, for Christians ( not for Muslims) and will stay it for ever.
Due to Muslim invasion the state must support churches and Christian work.

 

[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.

Can you provide any verifiable references?

Article VI Clause 3

Try Google on the First and Fourteenth Amendments

 

[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?

Article VI Clause 3

Try Google on the First and Fourteenth Amendments

What exactly do you understand to be prohibition? Your posts aren't making much sense to me and I have the general impression a careful study of the Constitution was actually disregarded by you as having any significance.

 

[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.

Can you provide any verifiable references?

Article VI Clause 3

Try Google on the First and Fourteenth Amendments

What exactly do you understand to be prohibition? Your posts aren't making much sense to me and I have the general impression a careful study of the Constitution was actually disregarded by you as having any significance.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Try

U.S. Constitution For Dummies 1st Edition
by Michael Arnheim

 

[Tennyson]

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.

I am not deranged regarding the premise of this thread. My statements are germane as they were invited by your first post regarding the U.S. being a secular state. You made the statement of fact that “according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.” This is factually untrue and incapable of being substantiated, and this statement skews the basis of the ensuing arguments.

So far you have made two direct replies to me regarding my posts. Both were personal in nature and devoid of substance, a rebuttal, or a counter argument.

This is not a directed at you or your perceived inveigling powers of linguistic prowess, but regarding me: you do not have the skill-set to involve me in a churlish personal back and forth exchange in the stead of substantive arguments. Writing as if only a perfunctory effort was put forth to generate fustian and disjointed prose devoid of substance vis-à-vis the vernacular phraseology of a Southern redneck such as “I got sumpin to tell y’all ‘cause ima patrotic ‘Merican” will always be subordinate to substance. Civility will always triumph.

 

[Tennyson]

Thank you.

I hadn't realized separation of Church and State actually meant proper acknowledgement and distinction of each.

To me the expression was just an instruction that we should keep each to their own jurisprudence or study, and not mix them in any such way, because putting them together would obfuscate our comprehension of both.

But apparently that is not what separation really means in this intellectual context. It seems, as most posters have already shared, that politics and religion are in fact very closely related in the same socially knit fabric. Separation, therefore means only distinguishment of origins, relations and opportunities.

I had not realized that before, as I centered my observations through material empiricism; but shifting my focus to intellectual empiricism I am now able to identify details and associations within empirical material objects.

Would the next step be to produce more empirical intellectual material to also forward this understanding and propulsion greater and appropriate political engagement?

The concept of the separation between church and state did not exist in the founding era, nor did it exist in the constitutional law arena until 1947 other than obiter dicta in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878).

The First Amendment’s “establishment clause” originated during the Philadelphia convention as a compromise between Madison and Fisher Ames with the Gentlemen’s Agreement that all Protestant denominations would be protected by not giving preferential treatment or national dominance to certain Protestant denominations. Madison was also pressured by threats of a second convention by Mason regarding the religious clauses of the First Amendment.

Another factor in the construction of the First Amendment’s religious clauses was the concern of the states regarding the federal government’s interference in the existing church-state relationships and that the states retained their rights and powers to define and control their church-state relationships as nine of the thirteen colonies had a church-state relationship. The history of the Church of England was a key factor.

The reason that God is not mentioned in the First Amendment religious clauses and is mentioned in the state’s religious clauses is simply textual and point of view.

The textual reason “God” does not appear in the First Amendment’s religious clauses and why it does appear in the state’s constitutions religious clauses is the point of view of the constitutions.

The First Amendment was written with the government being the subject of the First Amendment, and the in the state constitutions, the religious clauses are written with the-the individual as the subject: The First Amendment: “Congress shall….” The state’s constitutions: “All men,” or “”Every individual,” etc.

Another misconception regarding the separation of church and state is the purpose and intent of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists being a heavily edited and multi-person effort to make a political statement.

 

[Tennyson]

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.

The Ten Commandments are OK, maybe, cause they starred in a Cecille B. DeMille picture once upon a time, so they're "cultural" symbols not "religious" symbols, or maybe they're not OK, because they don't have a sufficiently secular setting to make their cultural context clear, blah, blah, blah. And I will gladly pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

Let's say you are an American who proudly upholds their right to "freedom from religion"? How are you supposed to feel, going into a court of law, like something out of My Cousin Vinny, only to see your right to freedom from religion violated by the presence of religious symbols in the court building? The only symbol I want to see is Blind Justice.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute..."
- JFK

There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

There was no standing for atheists under the First Amendment's religious clauses as not believing in God eliminated their protection under “religion” in the First Amendment.

An example by Ellsworth of a typical exchange during the debates:

But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and public detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.​

 

[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?

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.

The Ten Commandments are OK, maybe, cause they starred in a Cecille B. DeMille picture once upon a time, so they're "cultural" symbols not "religious" symbols, or maybe they're not OK, because they don't have a sufficiently secular setting to make their cultural context clear, blah, blah, blah. And I will gladly pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

Let's say you are an American who proudly upholds their right to "freedom from religion"? How are you supposed to feel, going into a court of law, like something out of My Cousin Vinny, only to see your right to freedom from religion violated by the presence of religious symbols in the court building? The only symbol I want to see is Blind Justice.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute..."
- JFK

There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

There was no standing for atheists under the First Amendment's religious clauses as not believing in God eliminated their protection under “religion” in the First Amendment.

An example by Ellsworth of a typical exchange during the debates:

But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and public detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.​

"There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

Sure there is. The establishment clause. No rights are unconditional, however. Not a free press, free speech, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. These rights are often in conflict and need to be balanced by ordinary human beings, who have their own biases. Government, whether it's courts, public schools, public libraries, can't be seen to favor one group over another.

 

[Tennyson]

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.

The Ten Commandments are OK, maybe, cause they starred in a Cecille B. DeMille picture once upon a time, so they're "cultural" symbols not "religious" symbols, or maybe they're not OK, because they don't have a sufficiently secular setting to make their cultural context clear, blah, blah, blah. And I will gladly pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

Let's say you are an American who proudly upholds their right to "freedom from religion"? How are you supposed to feel, going into a court of law, like something out of My Cousin Vinny, only to see your right to freedom from religion violated by the presence of religious symbols in the court building? The only symbol I want to see is Blind Justice.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute..."
- JFK

There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

There was no standing for atheists under the First Amendment's religious clauses as not believing in God eliminated their protection under “religion” in the First Amendment.

An example by Ellsworth of a typical exchange during the debates:

But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and public detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.​

"There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

Sure there is. The establishment clause. No rights are unconditional, however. Not a free press, free speech, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. These rights are often in conflict and need to be balanced by ordinary human beings, who have their own biases. Government, whether it's courts, public schools, public libraries, can't be seen to favor one group over another.

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

 

[koshergrl]

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?

You start out with a logical fallacy, because there is NOT a general consensus that the US is a secular state.

In other words, crap OP.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The 'wall of separation' has probably been the most misquoted, misinterpreted, and misused of all the concepts we find in the Founding documents.

The Founders did not intend for this to be a 'secular' nation. In fact they pretty much agreed that the Constitution would only work for a religious and moral people. And the first Congresses of the USA held to that concept which explains all the religious imagery and references on our federal buildings, institutions, money etc.

But they were determined that the government of the people, by the people, for the people would not be returned to any form of authoritarian government such as exists in dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, monarchies, and yes, theocracies. So, the First Amendment, among other things, ensured that no religious group or church would be given authority over the federal government and the federal government would have no say of any kind in the religious beliefs and practices of the people.

 

[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?

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.

The Ten Commandments are OK, maybe, cause they starred in a Cecille B. DeMille picture once upon a time, so they're "cultural" symbols not "religious" symbols, or maybe they're not OK, because they don't have a sufficiently secular setting to make their cultural context clear, blah, blah, blah. And I will gladly pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

Let's say you are an American who proudly upholds their right to "freedom from religion"? How are you supposed to feel, going into a court of law, like something out of My Cousin Vinny, only to see your right to freedom from religion violated by the presence of religious symbols in the court building? The only symbol I want to see is Blind Justice.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute..."
- JFK

There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

There was no standing for atheists under the First Amendment's religious clauses as not believing in God eliminated their protection under “religion” in the First Amendment.

An example by Ellsworth of a typical exchange during the debates:

But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and public detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.​

"There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

Sure there is. The establishment clause. No rights are unconditional, however. Not a free press, free speech, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. These rights are often in conflict and need to be balanced by ordinary human beings, who have their own biases. Government, whether it's courts, public schools, public libraries, can't be seen to favor one group over another.

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Dear Holos for the government to be NEUTRAL in areas of religion and beliefs,
this means
NEITHER establishing religion / faith based bias
NOR prohibiting it.

For example, if different people conduct communion under different rules, or don't require this at all, that is up to the people. The Govt does not make any ruling or law concerning rules on communions.

As a Democrat who believes in protecting "equal choice' for all people, regardless of belief,
I believe in treating religious, secular and political beliefs equally as BELIEFS, where Govt
cannot get involved in "taking sides" and endorsing one side while neglecting the other.

So for marriage laws, the govt should only be in charge of civil contracts between partners,
but NOT be in the business of regulating what "relationship the people have to be" in order
to have a financial or property contract enforced between them by informed consent at all times.
I would leave the social and spiritual rules/beliefs about marriage to the people to mandate through their own private groups, and not impose their beliefs outside the consenting group agreeing to those rules.

In addition to the First amendment on neither establishing nor denying religion,
I also recommend
* the Bill of Rights
* the Code of Ethics for Govt Service
* the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act
where 'discrimination by creed' would violate the spirit of these other laws

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

The Ten Commandments are OK, maybe, cause they starred in a Cecille B. DeMille picture once upon a time, so they're "cultural" symbols not "religious" symbols, or maybe they're not OK, because they don't have a sufficiently secular setting to make their cultural context clear, blah, blah, blah. And I will gladly pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

Let's say you are an American who proudly upholds their right to "freedom from religion"? How are you supposed to feel, going into a court of law, like something out of My Cousin Vinny, only to see your right to freedom from religion violated by the presence of religious symbols in the court building? The only symbol I want to see is Blind Justice.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute..."
- JFK

There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

There was no standing for atheists under the First Amendment's religious clauses as not believing in God eliminated their protection under “religion” in the First Amendment.

An example by Ellsworth of a typical exchange during the debates:

But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and public detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.​

"There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

Sure there is. The establishment clause. No rights are unconditional, however. Not a free press, free speech, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. These rights are often in conflict and need to be balanced by ordinary human beings, who have their own biases. Government, whether it's courts, public schools, public libraries, can't be seen to favor one group over another.

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

 

[Elvis Obama]

The Ten Commandments are OK, maybe, cause they starred in a Cecille B. DeMille picture once upon a time, so they're "cultural" symbols not "religious" symbols, or maybe they're not OK, because they don't have a sufficiently secular setting to make their cultural context clear, blah, blah, blah. And I will gladly pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

Let's say you are an American who proudly upholds their right to "freedom from religion"? How are you supposed to feel, going into a court of law, like something out of My Cousin Vinny, only to see your right to freedom from religion violated by the presence of religious symbols in the court building? The only symbol I want to see is Blind Justice.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute..."
- JFK

There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

There was no standing for atheists under the First Amendment's religious clauses as not believing in God eliminated their protection under “religion” in the First Amendment.

An example by Ellsworth of a typical exchange during the debates:

But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and public detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.​

"There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

Sure there is. The establishment clause. No rights are unconditional, however. Not a free press, free speech, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. These rights are often in conflict and need to be balanced by ordinary human beings, who have their own biases. Government, whether it's courts, public schools, public libraries, can't be seen to favor one group over another.

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

 

[Foxfyre]

There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

There was no standing for atheists under the First Amendment's religious clauses as not believing in God eliminated their protection under “religion” in the First Amendment.

An example by Ellsworth of a typical exchange during the debates:

But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and public detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.​

"There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

Sure there is. The establishment clause. No rights are unconditional, however. Not a free press, free speech, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. These rights are often in conflict and need to be balanced by ordinary human beings, who have their own biases. Government, whether it's courts, public schools, public libraries, can't be seen to favor one group over another.

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religion. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

 

[jillian]

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?

it's pretty much settled law.

the government is supposed to stay out of people's religions and government isn't allowed to favor any religion over another.

 

[jillian]

"There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

Sure there is. The establishment clause. No rights are unconditional, however. Not a free press, free speech, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. These rights are often in conflict and need to be balanced by ordinary human beings, who have their own biases. Government, whether it's courts, public schools, public libraries, can't be seen to favor one group over another.

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.