Separation of Church and State

[JakeStarkey]

Food for thought here.

 

[Katzndogz]

As we can see from the Chick Fil A controversy allowing a Christian a business license violates separation of church and state.

Should government employees who give to their church be fired for using public funds to support religious activities?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. We see no such thing, only a screwy Massachusetts politician.

You ought to see what the other side does in LA and TX about separation of church and state.

Allowing students the right to pray with the caveats of no disturbing the educational process and no disrupting their neighbor's learning somehow, in the minds of the wacks, infringes on religious liberty.

As we can see from the Chick Fil A controversy allowing a Christian a business license violates separation of church and state.

Should government employees who give to their church be fired for using public funds to support religious activities?

 

[Intense]

Out_of_Sense, you rarely demonstrate context. So I will take your comment above for what it is worth. I expect you to recognize a higher standard but apparently you don't. Your issue, not mine.

Jakey, shouldn't you be out looking up your footnotes footnotes? Leave the adults alone now or there will be no pudding. Run and play..... Dismissed.

 

[Intense]

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority. -James Madison

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

One of the most stirring passages for Separation ever, and a strong counter argument to Mr. Barton's claims..especially in part 3

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?

and in part 4

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.

The Bartons of this country would have us believe that we do not have to grant equal freedom to all religions and that Christianity should have precedence. Madison was very clear against that idea.

We have a lot of agreement here. At a Personal Level, We Each have a Right to Our Own Faith, as We see it. That should be evident. When we live life through our own eyes, accountable to God, through Conscience, putting God first in all things, You would think we would trust that God will handle things, on his terms, according to his expectations, not ours, right? Either Matters of Conscience are our own business or they are not. So what is our obligation? Be Fruitful, Multiply, Replenish the Earth. Bear Witness, Testify, tell the truth about what you see, from your unique perspective. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar, and God, what is Gods. I'm not seeing any oppression there. Live by example, learn from whatever life has to offer you. To me, my perspective has precedence over another, in how it relates to me. I'm the one responsible and accountable for my reasoning, action, and inaction. To me as an Individual, it is my Right to choose the Religion of my choice, which is Christianity. Do I have Tolerance for Other Religions? Of course I do.

 

[nitroz]

If the church wants to become involved in the state, then they should have no problem paying their fair share of taxes to uncle sam.

 

[pinqy]

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

One of the most stirring passages for Separation ever, and a strong counter argument to Mr. Barton's claims..especially in part 3 and in part 4

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.

The Bartons of this country would have us believe that we do not have to grant equal freedom to all religions and that Christianity should have precedence. Madison was very clear against that idea.

We have a lot of agreement here. At a Personal Level, We Each have a Right to Our Own Faith, as We see it. That should be evident. When we live life through our own eyes, accountable to God, through Conscience, putting God first in all things, You would think we would trust that God will handle things, on his terms, according to his expectations, not ours, right? Either Matters of Conscience are our own business or they are not. So what is our obligation? Be Fruitful, Multiply, Replenish the Earth. Bear Witness, Testify, tell the truth about what you see, from your unique perspective. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar, and God, what is Gods. I'm not seeing any oppression there. Live by example, learn from whatever life has to offer you. To me, my perspective has precedence over another, in how it relates to me. I'm the one responsible and accountable for my reasoning, action, and inaction. To me as an Individual, it is my Right to choose the Religion of my choice, which is Christianity. Do I have Tolerance for Other Religions? Of course I do.

But many don't. Barton, and others, want Christianity to hold a special legal status in the US over other religions, using the government to support and endorse Christianity.

 

[there4eyeM]

'Christianity' is such and integral part of western civilization, culture, art, philosophy and thinking that totally extricating it is impossible. Serving it can, however, be regulated and/or avoided, and must be by the provisions of this most sacred of amendments.

 

[pinqy]

'Christianity' is such and integral part of western civilization, culture, art, philosophy and thinking that totally extricating it is impossible.

I'm not aware of anyone trying to extricate Christianity from Western Culture.

 

[there4eyeM]

I took it that certain extreme examples presented implied that some elements of society desired that end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Certain extreme and inconsequential elements may wish such an end, but the possibility of such a likeliness remains most improbable.

By separating church and state, our Constitution has created an environment where religious expression is the freest in the world, where sinner and saint and in-between and no-between all have an equal opportunity to participate or no.

 

[there4eyeM]

Freest in the world might go a bit far, but that particular amendment is one of the crowning achievements of governing documents.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As we can see from the Chick Fil A controversy allowing a Christian a business license violates separation of church and state.

Should government employees who give to their church be fired for using public funds to support religious activities?

Perhaps ANYONE who donates money to their church should be prosecuted for that, since we all know that leftists believe ALL money belongs to the government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

'Christianity' is such and integral part of western civilization, culture, art, philosophy and thinking that totally extricating it is impossible.

I'm not aware of anyone trying to extricate Christianity from Western Culture.

Then you aren't very aware in general.

 

[pinqy]

'Christianity' is such and integral part of western civilization, culture, art, philosophy and thinking that totally extricating it is impossible.

I'm not aware of anyone trying to extricate Christianity from Western Culture.

Then you aren't very aware in general.

Your complete lack of examples doesn't really help your point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not aware of anyone trying to extricate Christianity from Western Culture.

Then you aren't very aware in general.

Your complete lack of examples doesn't really help your point.

If you're that oblivious that you NEED a list of examples, you're not worth the time and effort that list would take.

You've mistaken yourself for someone I need to prove something to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cecilie1200 continues to mangle the discussion by suggesting objective evidence should be required to support her outlandish statement.

Then you aren't very aware in general.

Your complete lack of examples doesn't really help your point.

If you're that oblivious that you NEED a list of examples, you're not worth the time and effort that list would take.

You've mistaken yourself for someone I need to prove something to.

 

[pinqy]

Then you aren't very aware in general.

Your complete lack of examples doesn't really help your point.

If you're that oblivious that you NEED a list of examples, you're not worth the time and effort that list would take..

Why would it take time or effort to give one example if it's so obvious? It shouldn't have been any harder for you than to write the post you did.

 

[kiwiman127]

From David Barton's American Heritage Series (2011)
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, correspondence

This is one subject that we as Americans need to come to terms with. I ask that you research a bit yourself before posting a reply. This is who were are as Americans. Also, I would ask whether you'd allow anyone to misquote a statement from your personal communications.

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush, both signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote to each other concerning the phrasing and implications of the First Amendment. During their correspondence, Jefferson wrote Rush a response which included, "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." The letter goes on to calm Rush and others. This phrase was taken out of context and continues to the present.

This private correspondence clarifies to Rush and other that the intent of the First Amendment was that government will generate no legislation affecting the establishment of a national religion, or prohibit religious pursuit of the individual. Neither attempts to affect the operation of the other, simply put.

Our elected officials are protecting every other religion, but do nothing to protect basic Christian principles that most will agree is the basis of our separation from England. However, if a major incident occurs (ie, the incident in Colorado), our elected officials are amongst the first to use Christian religion to make themselves look good.

It seems the book 'The Jefferson Lies" by David Barton is being pulled off of bookstore shelves because of inaccuracies presented as fact. "The Jefferson Lies" is just that, a book of lies. Barton tried to twist things to favor his ideology. Oh, the irony.

Publisher pulls Jefferson book over inaccuracies
A best-seller about Thomas Jefferson by an influential Tea Party and evangelical figure has been recalled after the publisher announced on Thursday that it has detected factual inaccuracies in the book.
Nashville-based evangelical publisher Thomas Nelson is no longer shipping any copies to retailers of “The Jefferson Lies’’ by David Barton and is recalling existing copies from brick-and-mortar retailers. It also has requested to online booksellers that they no longer sell the e-book version and has removed the book from its own website. The book is still being sold on Amazon.
Publisher pulls Jefferson book over inaccuracies - books - TODAY.com

 

[Blakcat51]

I'll just say this: after going through this study, during which Mr Barton produced copies of original government documents, I find it disappointing that our grandparents generation took it upon themselves to "assume" what the intentions of the Founding Fathers was. Look at where our society is, and what our children will face when they grow up because of this interferrence. 'nuff said....

First, look up "context". Barton is out of context, using only texts with which he agrees and ignoring material that disagrees with him. Simply because he uses some historical materials does not mean he is in context. It is your duty to go to every footnote then to every source, and then read even more.

Second, anybody can pray in public school anytime he or she wishes, but cannot disrupt the educational process or be coercive of his neighbor while doing so.

Third, no prayer has been regulated as to wordage by government.