The Real intention of Separation of Church and State

[mudwhistle]

Father Time, thank you for demonstrating my observation that you are not clever. But you can easily handle the Mudwhistles of the universe. Shoot, my cat could handle the Mudwhistles of the universe. Carry on.

The only thing you can handle is your little thing you call a pecker.

He's just as wrong as you are.

Handle it.

 

[Father Time]

"If the sentence were to be taken literally then nobody could display a religious symbol anywhere if somebody objects to it....even in our own home."

Err no, if taken literally it would only prevent the enacting of laws, setting up a religious display is not enacting laws.

In the current form you putting a religious symbol doesn't violate church v. state because you aren't the state even if you work for them. If Steve Jobs endorses something does that mean Apple endorses it? No. Same applies to lesser employees (which I guess would be everyone else).

It limits what the government can do (well technically only the federal government but the 14th made it apply to all state and local governments), not what people can do on their own property with their own cash.

 

[mudwhistle]

"If the sentence were to be taken literally then nobody could display a religious symbol anywhere if somebody objects to it....even in our own home."

Err no, if taken literally it would only prevent the enacting of laws, setting up a religious display is not enacting laws.

In the current form you putting a religious symbol doesn't violate church v. state because you aren't the state even if you work for them. If Steve Jobs endorses something does that mean Apple endorses it? No. Same applies to lesser employees (which I guess would be everyone else).

It limits what the government can do (well technically only the federal government but the 14th made it apply to all state and local governments), not what people can do on their own property with their own cash.

Dude....Church v. State does not exist.

It's not in the constitution.

That is the point here. There is no Church v. State to violate. It's a liberal myth.

 

[pinqy]

Dude....Church v. State does not exist.

It's not in the constitution.

That is the point here. There is no Church v. State to violate. It's a liberal myth.

The right to a fair trial isn't in the Constitution either, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Article VI forbids religious tests for office.
Ammendment 1 forbids laws regarding the establishment of religion and laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

If those aren't meant to keep the State out of people's individual religious beliefs or to keep the State from mandating religion, then what are they for?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mudwhistle simply wants to live in 1785 and ignore all of American history and culture. Thomas Jefferson and James Maidson would hold Mudwhistle while Ben Franklin, Tom Paine, Ethan Allan and others of the Founders would take turns kicking him metaphorically in the butt for his silly statements.

 

[FA_Q2]

pinqy
The right to a fair trial isn't in the Constitution either, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Tell me you are not serious? Bill of rights, amendments 5 and 6 (mostly 6) – read them. Love them.

Amendment 1 is pretty clear here. No laws mean no laws, for or against. In this context I see how a religious symbol should NOT be displayed in a public building even though it is not law but rather policy and government policy should fallow the same precedent as the law. This, however, also protects the right for others to practice their religion openly even on public land. The most obvious infringement on the right I can think of is the systematic and deliberate takedown of religious or bible groups at school. In that case it is the people that are running the religious displays, not the government or the representative of that government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

pinqy
The right to a fair trial isn't in the Constitution either, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Tell me you are not serious? Bill of rights, amendments 5 and 6 (mostly 6) – read them. Love them.

Amendment 1 is pretty clear here. No laws mean no laws, for or against. In this context I see how a religious symbol should NOT be displayed in a public building even though it is not law but rather policy and government policy should fallow the same precedent as the law. This, however, also protects the right for others to practice their religion openly even on public land. The most obvious infringement on the right I can think of is the systematic and deliberate takedown of religious or bible groups at school. In that case it is the people that are running the religious displays, not the government or the representative of that government.

Your opinion is incorrect in terms of its assertion on constitutional matters.

 

[mudwhistle]

Dude....Church v. State does not exist.

It's not in the constitution.

That is the point here. There is no Church v. State to violate. It's a liberal myth.

The right to a fair trial isn't in the Constitution either, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Article VI forbids religious tests for office.
Ammendment 1 forbids laws regarding the establishment of religion and laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

If those aren't meant to keep the State out of people's individual religious beliefs or to keep the State from mandating religion, then what are they for?

Habeas Corpus guarantees a fair trial.


The intention of the First Amendment was to prevent us from being forced to observe one single religion...prevent a religious hierarchy from taking over the government thus forming a theocracy, and to prevent anyone from removing God for our society.

It was not put there to force God out so that secular groups can take over and call all of the shots.

There is no mention in the constitution that allows you because you are offended by religion, to tell everyone that they must remove it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Mudwhistle simply wants to live in 1785 and ignore all of American history and culture. Thomas Jefferson and James Maidson would hold Mudwhistle while Ben Franklin, Tom Paine, Ethan Allan and others of the Founders would take turns kicking him metaphorically in the butt for his silly statements.

Doubtful...I think they would join me in condemning you for trying to warp the meaning of their life's work. I'm the one trying to defend the constitution while you're the one trying to pervert it into something of your choosing.

When you talk about imagry like "Butt-kicking" it pretty much makes you seem petty and juvinile.

 

[Father Time]

Dude....Church v. State does not exist.

It's not in the constitution.

That is the point here. There is no Church v. State to violate. It's a liberal myth.

The right to a fair trial isn't in the Constitution either, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Article VI forbids religious tests for office.
Ammendment 1 forbids laws regarding the establishment of religion and laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

If those aren't meant to keep the State out of people's individual religious beliefs or to keep the State from mandating religion, then what are they for?

Habeas Corpus guarantees a fair trial.


The intention of the First Amendment was to prevent us from being forced to observe one single religion...prevent a religious hierarchy from taking over the government thus forming a theocracy, and to prevent anyone from removing God for our society.

It was not put there to force God out so that secular groups can take over and call all of the shots.

There is no mention in the constitution that allows you because you are offended by religion, to tell everyone that they must remove it.

Yeah but there is a clause against government endorsing/respecting a religion we just call it separation of church and state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Look up "metaphorical", Mudwhistle, and you can stop the petty juvenile behavior right now. No, you are not defending the Constitution. You are defending an America that never existed except in your peapicking mind. Truly go read the gents I mentioned above, and even see if they would give you time of day. They would probably give you metaphorically (oh, darn, I know, that word again!) the back of their collective hand.

 

[mudwhistle]

The right to a fair trial isn't in the Constitution either, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Article VI forbids religious tests for office.
Ammendment 1 forbids laws regarding the establishment of religion and laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

If those aren't meant to keep the State out of people's individual religious beliefs or to keep the State from mandating religion, then what are they for?

Habeas Corpus guarantees a fair trial.


The intention of the First Amendment was to prevent us from being forced to observe one single religion...prevent a religious hierarchy from taking over the government thus forming a theocracy, and to prevent anyone from removing God for our society.

It was not put there to force God out so that secular groups can take over and call all of the shots.

There is no mention in the constitution that allows you because you are offended by religion, to tell everyone that they must remove it.

Yeah but there is a clause against government endorsing/respecting a religion we just call it separation of church and state.

Again....it matters not what you want to call it.

Separation of Church and State must be in the Constitution for it to be law. It is misleading and is not the author's intent when they wrote the Amendment.

So you're just blowing hot-air.

 

[mudwhistle]

Look up "metaphorical", Mudwhistle, and you can stop the petty juvenile behavior right now. No, you are not defending the Constitution. You are defending an America that never existed except in your peapicking mind. Truly go read the gents I mentioned above, and even see if they would give you time of day. They would probably give you metaphorically (oh, darn, I know, that word again!) the back of their collective hand.

LMAO!!!

"Truly go"

.....just Fuck off asshole.



You really sound like a motherfucking baby. Why don't you go whine to someone who's listening because this fucken discussion is over.

Give me the back of their collective hands.

Who fucken talks like that?????

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Mudwhistle, you do not authoritatively interpret the Constitution. The SC does. You just get to complain. Great country, huh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mudwhistle, you are the one who is whinging because you got metaphorically slapped around here. And you will continue to get it if you continue to act as if you know what you are talking about.

 

[pinqy]

Tell me you are not serious? Bill of rights, amendments 5 and 6 (mostly 6) – read them. Love them.

I'm obviously more familiar with them than you...the phrase "fair trial" is nowhere in the constitution.

Amendment 1 is pretty clear here. No laws mean no laws, for or against. In this context I see how a religious symbol should NOT be displayed in a public building even though it is not law but rather policy and government policy should fallow the same precedent as the law. This, however, also protects the right for others to practice their religion openly even on public land. The most obvious infringement on the right I can think of is the systematic and deliberate takedown of religious or bible groups at school. In that case it is the people that are running the religious displays, not the government or the representative of that government.

There's a difference between public land and government property. As soon as the government becomes involved in allowing or disallowing in any way, then it becomes the government's doings. And there are no prohibitions against religious or bible groups at school. The school and the teachers can't run them, though, because that becomes government involvement.

Habeas Corpus guarantees a fair trial.

Not by itself, no, but the point is that the phrase "fair trial" nowhere appears in the Constitution. Your argument was that since the phrase "Seperation of Church and State" doesn't appear, then the concept isn't in there either. So by that rationale, since the phrase "right to a fair trial" doesn't appear, it doesn't exist either. Just as right to speedy trial, Habeus Corpus, jury trial, and prohibition agains self-incrimination are in place to ensure a fair trial (though it's not explicitly stated) so too are the prohibitions against religious tests, establishment of religion, and free exercise are in place to seperate church from state.

The intention of the First Amendment was to prevent us from being forced to observe one single religion...prevent a religious hierarchy from taking over the government thus forming a theocracy, and to prevent anyone from removing God for our society.

Not quite. The intent was to prevent the government from dictating what authorized religious beliefs were, not just one single narrow belief. Madison made it clear that Christianity could not be favored over other religions, because if you did that you could also favor one Christian belief over another.

It was not put there to force God out so that secular groups can take over and call all of the shots.

Pretty much all school prayer cases were brought about by religious people, not atheists.

There is no mention in the constitution that allows you because you are offended by religion, to tell everyone that they must remove it.

So you would be fine with giant statues of Baal, or mandatory distribution of Korans?

It's not about offense, it's about what the government is allowed to do as far as religious belief is concerned. The government cannot dictate, mandate, or even suggest 'proper' religious belief/observances.

 

[mudwhistle]

Tell me you are not serious? Bill of rights, amendments 5 and 6 (mostly 6) – read them. Love them.

I'm obviously more familiar with them than you...the phrase "fair trial" is nowhere in the constitution.

And "Separation of Church and State" are not in the Constitution ether.


This is a ridiculous argument.

Just because the two words "Fair Trial" aren't in there.....assuming that you're correct....doesn't mean your rights aren't protected.

This argument is so ridiculous I'm not even gonna look up the words that were used in place of "Fair Trial".

 

[pinqy]

Tell me you are not serious? Bill of rights, amendments 5 and 6 (mostly 6) – read them. Love them.

I'm obviously more familiar with them than you...the phrase "fair trial" is nowhere in the constitution.

And "Separation of Church and State" are not in the Constitution ether.


This is a ridiculous argument.

Just because the two words "Fair Trial" aren't in there.....assuming that you're correct....doesn't mean your rights aren't protected.

Exactly, yours is a ridiclous argument...just because the exact phrase isn't in the constitution doesn't mean the concepts and rights aren't in there. Your argument that because "Seperation of Church and State" isn't in the Consttution is ridiculous because the concept and protected rights of church/state seperation ARE. That's why Thomas Jefferson used the phrase in the first place: he was saying that was the intent of the First Ammendment.

 

[pinqy]

Actually, let's look at the phrase....from Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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 & State.

I'm not sure how you can read that as anything other than Jefferson believing that there was a Seperation based on the 1st ammendment even if the exact phrase isn't there. And since the 1st ammendment was partly based on Jefferson's own work, I'd give him the edge over you over correct interpretation.

Or would you like to share how Jefferson was wrong and the 1st ammendment doesn't create a wall of seperation?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't worry, because Mudwhistle's opinion has never met a fact that Mudwhistle can't ignore. If you are hoping for a logical and objective discussion with MW, you are out of luck. 'whistle is simply a nutter.