The Proper Relationship of Church and State in America

[koshergrl]

The United States, contrary to popular belief, was not founded upon a desire for religious freedom. Our original European inhabitants came here to escape religious persecution, but when our founding fathers determined to rebel against the crown more than a hundred years later, it was not for religious purposes they did so. They acted against tyranny, rather. Specifically they chafed under strenuous taxation and continued rape of American resources, natural and monetary, by the Crown.

Once they embarked upon this path, they began to take into consideration the role that religion would play in their newly established government. Moved by the persecution of Baptists, Jefferson ultimately wrote “…no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever…nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786.)

Jefferson made it clear that while the government has no right to establish religion or force men to worship, neither does it have the right to silence or penalize men for their faith. Tyranny, according to Jefferson, is when the government forces men to support an ideology they do not agree with, or prevents them from advancing civilly based upon their faith.
This is the proper relationship of church and state.

Reference:

Virginia Historical Society. Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom (Jan. 16, 1786) From Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (annotated transcript) - Becoming Americans   |   The Story of Virginia, An American Experience on February

 

[occupied]

The proper relationship should be that they are strangers to one another neither informing the other.

 

[koshergrl]

No, that's not what Jefferson and the founding fathers thought at all.

You are the biggest loser. But thanks for playing.

 

[koshergrl]

I think you missed this part:

"nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess"

Politicians were not excluded. As you can tell from this: "the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

 

[occupied]

Don't really care what they thought on this issue, The religious landscape of the 18th century bears little resemblance to today. The wall of separation should be a wall, not a ramp where the government is powerless to fight back against a growing theocracy movement.

 

[koshergrl]

Fortunately that's not true, nor is it in the constitution. It's just another liberal mantra that has no basis in reality or fact.

"Specifically, candidates for public office should not be judged based on whether they “profess or renounce this or that religious opinion.”

The Separation of Church and State from the American Revolution to the Early Republic, Divining America, TeacherServe®, National Humanities Center

 

[bodecea]

I think you missed this part:

"nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess"

Politicians were not excluded. As you can tell from this: "the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

I am curious as to who you think, politician or otherwise, is not free to profess in this country.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I think you missed this part:

"nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess"

Politicians were not excluded. As you can tell from this: "the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

I am curious as to who you think, politician or otherwise, is not free to profess in this country.

does "free" mean without viscious attack in the "free" press........?

 

[koshergrl]

I think you missed this part:

"nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess"

Politicians were not excluded. As you can tell from this: "the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

I am curious as to who you think, politician or otherwise, is not free to profess in this country.

Ah, another poster who seems incapable of just reading the words that are spoken and addressing the topic at hand.

This is about the proper relationship. I didn't say anyone is not free to profess their faith in this country.

Though if anti-Christian bigots had their way of course they would not be able to.

But back to the actual topic:

"...presidents from Washington to Madison played a delicate game of brinksmanship. All of them strove to keep religion from becoming the fodder for controversy by affirming that expressions of spirituality had a legitimate place in the public square while also upholding what they regarded as a due separation between church and state."

The Separation of Church and State from the American Revolution to the Early Republic, Divining America, TeacherServe®, National Humanities Center

 

[koshergrl]

"...secularism forbade the federal government from establishing a national church or interfering with church affairs in the states. However, it did not create a policy of official indifference, much less hostility toward organized religion."

Deism and the Founding of the United States, Divining America, TeacherServe®, National Humanities Center

 

[geauxtohell]

No, that's not what Jefferson and the founding fathers thought at all.

You are the biggest loser. But thanks for playing.

I guess they forgot to put it in the constitution, huh.

 

[koshergrl]

Forgot to put what in the Constitution?

Incidentally, Jefferson foresaw the potential infringement of religious freedom as well:


"And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the act of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such as would be an infringement of natural right."

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (annotated transcript) - Becoming Americans   |   The Story of Virginia, An American Experience

 

[geauxtohell]

Rick Santorum and the Politics of Theology - NYTimes.com

 

[bodecea]

I think you missed this part:

"nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess"

Politicians were not excluded. As you can tell from this: "the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

I am curious as to who you think, politician or otherwise, is not free to profess in this country.

does "free" mean without viscious attack in the "free" press........?

Is the press the government?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Don't really care what they thought on this issue, The religious landscape of the 18th century bears little resemblance to today. The wall of separation should be a wall, not a ramp where the government is powerless to fight back against a growing theocracy movement.

Growing theocracy movement?

Got examples?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Don't really care what they thought on this issue, The religious landscape of the 18th century bears little resemblance to today. The wall of separation should be a wall, not a ramp where the government is powerless to fight back against a growing theocracy movement.

Wrong!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I am curious as to who you think, politician or otherwise, is not free to profess in this country.

does "free" mean without viscious attack in the "free" press........?

Is the press the government?

The MSM has pretty much erased any lines between itself and the Democratic party....

 

[occupied]

"...secularism forbade the federal government from establishing a national church or interfering with church affairs in the states. However, it did not create a policy of official indifference, much less hostility toward organized religion."

Deism and the Founding of the United States, Divining America, TeacherServe®, National Humanities Center

The supreme court did that over the course of two centuries because they left it vague, you cannot discuss the constitutional questions of separation without discussing the decisions made by the SCOTUS, they more than the founders have defined our policies. They are the last word on this and they have consistently upheld our current policies.

 

[koshergrl]

Rick Santorum and the Politics of Theology - NYTimes.com

Oh, I see.

You're just trolling.

BTW, intelligent people actually will post a quote and if it isn't clear what point they are making, they will add a couple of words.

I don't click on the links posted by idiots who can't be bothered to say anything about it. It's just a diversionary tactic.

 

[koshergrl]

"...secularism forbade the federal government from establishing a national church or interfering with church affairs in the states. However, it did not create a policy of official indifference, much less hostility toward organized religion."

Deism and the Founding of the United States, Divining America, TeacherServe®, National Humanities Center

The supreme court did that over the course of two centuries because they left it vague, you cannot discuss the constitutional questions of separation without discussing the decisions made by the SCOTUS, they more than the founders have defined our policies. They are the last word on this and they have consistently upheld our current policies.

Thank you for that vague, un supported, and yet completely nonsensical post.