Separation of church and state

[OKTexas]

As much as you want people to respect your religion, other people want you to respect that they are not part of the same religion. Pushing legislation on birth control is the equivalent of pushing the Catholic religion on non-catholics. Would you be okay with a law stating that all females in the workforce had to wear burqas?

It's fine to let your religion define who you are, but don't forget that there are other people with other religions, so don't let it define the law.

Only regulations on birth control is the left trying to force people to buy it that have a religious objection to it. Isn't that ass backwards to what your implying?

You're right, bad example. But the issue of catholic hospitals and universities rejecting birth control is another can of worms. If businesses can be exempt from certain regulations because they were started by a religion, then I have a few religions I'd like to start to help with some businesses ideas I have.

But my other main still stands as well. The issue of gay marriage is almost entirely made of christians pushing their beliefs into law (Defense of Marriage Act).

Different can of worm, hardly, exact same can of worms, religious based or even deeply religious business owners can not be forced to provide services that violate their faith. It goes to the free exercise clause and I am very confident the courts will agree.

As for your other main, you mean a small minority of the gay community trying to force society to change millions of years of tradition and law to bastardize a the definition of marriage. Screw them, they want to create something new, let them name it. Marriage is a union capable of natural procreation, the shit they are proposing is not.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Only regulations on birth control is the left trying to force people to buy it that have a religious objection to it. Isn't that ass backwards to what your implying?

You're right, bad example. But the issue of catholic hospitals and universities rejecting birth control is another can of worms. If businesses can be exempt from certain regulations because they were started by a religion, then I have a few religions I'd like to start to help with some businesses ideas I have.

But my other main still stands as well. The issue of gay marriage is almost entirely made of christians pushing their beliefs into law (Defense of Marriage Act).

Different can of worm, hardly, exact same can of worms, religious based or even deeply religious business owners can not be forced to provide services that violate their faith. It goes to the free exercise clause and I am very confident the courts will agree.

Okay, then can muslims ban women from working in their businesses in america? Can the amish start a hospital that refuses to use any technological breakthroughs? Can I start a religion that states taxes and regulations by the government are an affront to my beliefs, and then start a business based on that doctrine?

As for your other main, you mean a small minority of the gay community trying to force society to change millions of years of tradition and law to bastardize a the definition of marriage. Screw them, they want to create something new, let them name it. Marriage is a union capable of natural procreation, the shit they are proposing is not.

That's where the disconnect is. The gay community isn't forcing the straight community to change a damn thing. Definitions are fleeting, and tradition is a fallacy when used as an excuse for an action. All they want is acceptance, I guess I never realized that was so hard for christians to do.

 

[OKTexas]

You're right, bad example. But the issue of catholic hospitals and universities rejecting birth control is another can of worms. If businesses can be exempt from certain regulations because they were started by a religion, then I have a few religions I'd like to start to help with some businesses ideas I have.

But my other main still stands as well. The issue of gay marriage is almost entirely made of christians pushing their beliefs into law (Defense of Marriage Act).

Different can of worm, hardly, exact same can of worms, religious based or even deeply religious business owners can not be forced to provide services that violate their faith. It goes to the free exercise clause and I am very confident the courts will agree.

Okay, then can muslims ban women from working in their businesses in america? Can the amish start a hospital that refuses to use any technological breakthroughs? Can I start a religion that states taxes and regulations by the government are an affront to my beliefs, and then start a business based on that doctrine?

As for your other main, you mean a small minority of the gay community trying to force society to change millions of years of tradition and law to bastardize a the definition of marriage. Screw them, they want to create something new, let them name it. Marriage is a union capable of natural procreation, the shit they are proposing is not.

That's where the disconnect is. The gay community isn't forcing the straight community to change a damn thing. Definitions are fleeting, and tradition is a fallacy when used as an excuse for an action. All they want is acceptance, I guess I never realized that was so hard for christians to do.

Yep, Muslims can ban women from working in their business, after all it is their business. I never hired any women to work in mine. The Amish can also do what ever they want, as for your tax evasion scheme, I say go for it, you might slip it by the IRS.

Acceptance, right, form one of the least accepting, least tolerant groups in this country. There is a radical minority in the gay community that are determined to force us to alter traditional and legal definitions just to prove they can. Many in the gay community have absolutely no interest in getting married or taking on the trappings of the straight world. You can tell me they are only concerned with acceptance when they are willing to accept dissenting views from their own community without shouting them down. Or when they allow dissenting opinions at their festivals and parades, their not interested in equality, they want preference, which is total bull shit.

You also failed to address the point in bold above concerning procreation. How about you go there?

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

I see you don't understand it at all.

Back up your assertion, please.

Go to the top of the page and look at My initial post. It explains precisely what the 1st Amendment does.

The 1st is NOT a means by which we keep and control religious perspective nor a means of keeping religion out of our government.

It is one thing only. It prevents the Government from doing what the Kings of England did. Create a state sanctions (and required) church.

Anything more is just people attempting to impose their agenda upon everyone else.

So based on what you said initially in this thread, what exactly did I say in my post that contradicts or opposes what you said in yours? What about my post indicates that I do not understand the separation of church and state?

Again, back up your assertion, please.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Back up your assertion, please.

Go to the top of the page and look at My initial post. It explains precisely what the 1st Amendment does.

The 1st is NOT a means by which we keep and control religious perspective nor a means of keeping religion out of our government.

It is one thing only. It prevents the Government from doing what the Kings of England did. Create a state sanctions (and required) church.

Anything more is just people attempting to impose their agenda upon everyone else.

So based on what you said initially in this thread, what exactly did I say in my post that contradicts or opposes what you said in yours? What about my post indicates that I do not understand the separation of church and state?

Again, back up your assertion, please.

He can’t.

As already correctly noted he and others on the right ignore the case law, which has clearly established the fact that the Framers indeed intended there to be a wall of separation between church and state, where religious dogma may not be codified into secular law, where the state may not promote religion absent a secular motive, or manifest excessive government entanglement in religion:

“The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’”

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

The Framers understood the potential harm related to the conjoining of church and state, where a given religious faction in the majority might use that majority status as a partisan weapon against political opponents:

Endorsement [of religion by the state] 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

This is why conservatives, for the most part, are hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence, where they perceive a political advantage lost, in that social conservatives and Christian fundamentalists overwhelmingly vote republican.

And the notion that he First Amendment applies only to the Federal government prohibiting the establishment of a ‘state religion’ is clearly wrong, as it conflicts with 14th Amendment jurisprudence and incorporation doctrine, applying the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment in particular, to the states and local jurisdictions.