The Real intention of Separation of Church and State

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by ihopehefails, Dec 1, 2009.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    The real intent of the first amendment was not to snub religion out of public life such as taking down the wreaths at city hall but was to protect church's from the government. The first clause basically says that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of... and the second part says that no law can be created that inhibits someone's religion.

    I believe that the writers meant this to mean that government can't create a state church like the church of England because they knew that whenever the government got involved in anything it usually snuffed out its competitors. They feared that an official church of the state would destroy other people's churches and destroy the freedom for any individual to attend the church that they choose to along with it.

    This protects individual's right to believe any religious beliefs that they want by preventing the state from creating an official church or inhibiting them from attending a church. This means that a small town full of Christians can have government funding for Christmas trees and a small town full of Muslims can fund <insert muslim ceremony here> without anyone else's right to believe or attend a different church being threatened simply because it separates church from state.

    BTW, The expression's use of church does not refer to a person's religious beliefs associated with that church but the institution and organization itself. Its like saying separation of <the Vatican> from the state or separation of the Church of England from England. Its referring to the organization not the values associated with it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2009
  2. nodoginnafight
    Offline

    nodoginnafight No Party Affiliation

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,755
    Thanks Received:
    1,069
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,497
    you were going great (imho) right up until you got to:
    I appreciate your right to your own interpretation - But I disagree. And I hope the Constitution NEVER gets interpreted this way by the courts.
     
  3. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,204
    Thanks Received:
    6,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,044
    And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.
     
  4. pinqy
    Offline

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,058
    Thanks Received:
    575
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,010
    Let's take a closer look at this. The first ammendment supports an INDIVDUAL's right to freedom of religion. The first ammendment only applies to the states through the 14th ammendment, the relevant part reading: " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Govenment funding for the majority religion gives extra religious expression to those of the majority, and denies it to the minority. This is not equal protection and it's not freedom of religion for the minority religions. Government support or endorsement of one set of religious beliefs necessarily puts those religious beliefs not endorsed on lesser footing, lesser protection, and certainly not the same freedom to practice.
     
  5. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    Also, don't forget the evils of abortion. :doubt:
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2009
  6. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,204
    Thanks Received:
    6,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,044
    If conservatives spent as much time, effort, and money on the children of unwanted pregnancy, then we could probably end abortion simply because there is an alternative.

    Is that going to happen? Of course not. Conservatives only want to get them born. After that? Screw 'em. They don't care what happens.
     
  7. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    Actually, it was to protect those of minority religious groups from persecution by majority religious groups.

    It was to protect the right of anyone to speak their religion freely, and not have it interfere with their right to participate freely in enterprise, politics, prosperity.

    As usual, rgaygene, you have it exaclty ass backwards. Which is the way you like it, I'm sure.
     
  8. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,204
    Thanks Received:
    6,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,044
    At least you have barely enough sense to understand that someone is being protected from the religious. No one ever made laws or wrote protections against atheists.
     
  9. pinqy
    Offline

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,058
    Thanks Received:
    575
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,010
    You're kidding, right? You've honestly never heard of blasphemy laws? And didn't know that many states in their original constitutions had religious requirements, usually just a basic statement of belief in God, in order to serve in office or serve on a jury? There have been plenty of laws either directly or indirectly against atheists.
     
  10. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,204
    Thanks Received:
    6,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,044
    And thank God they don't exist anymore.
     

Share This Page