What Really Happens When You Don't Separate Church and State

[boedicca]

Jagger is reveals a great deal of ignorance, both historical and constitutional.

The first Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a religion and protects the rights of individuals to freely exercise their own religious preferences. Printing "In God We Trust" does not establish a state religion, such as the Church of England, which was the model the framers had in mind and wished to avoid. There is no state clergy, nor are their state churches, nor is anyone prohibited from choosing to following (or not follow) a particular religion.

 

[Charles_Main]

As long as Congress never passes a law establishing a state religion, and People can worship as they wish. The occasion cross on state land is NOT going to lead to a Christian Theocracy in America.

Congress established religion when it passed the evil wicked law that put "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins.

Um no. Having those words on our money in no way establishes an official state religion and it in no way infringes on anyones freedom to worship as they please.

It is exactly this kind of Extreme left wing thinking I was referring to.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The first Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a religion and protects the rights of individuals to freely exercise their own religious preferences.

Nope, you're wrong.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making law that establishes virtue, as founded upon a reverence of God and an expectation of future rewards and punishments, or prohibits the free exercise thereof.

 

[rdean]

How far do people on this board go in their occult and mystical beliefs?

Only up to spirits, angels and demons or do they include "Ouija boards and astrology"?

What about superstitions? Are those included?

Portents?

Signs?

Tea leaves?

I've always wondered why some are believable and others aren't?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Printing "In God We Trust" does not establish a state religion, such as the Church of England, which was the model the framers had in mind and wished to avoid.

"In God We Trust" not only assumes the government has power to decide what duties we owe to God, it even assumes that the government has authority to discharge the religious duties of the people, which is of course absurd.

There is no state clergy, nor are their state churches

There is an establishment of a virtue, as founded upon a reverence of God, and that is prohibited.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So in essence sharia law could be applied against anybody not of the muslim faith because as "infidels" we can all be seen as warring against god. The human rights violations against the women of that faith are deal breakers as far as I'm concerned. Anytime people can rape women and make it her fault, can stone women, can shoot women, or cut off their noses and ears all in the name of a faith without there being a punishment for such crimes means there is no seperation of church from state. That is a sick oppressed society.

in a theocracy like iran, it can be used against anyone.

do you think that if the line between church and state were destroyed in this country that the 'g-d hates fags' or 'let's burn korans' crowd would be any different? you know, like when we had witch hunts here.

Which is exactly why we need to stick to the principles of the Constitution and keep religion out of power.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a curious irony to all religions that no one ever seems to recognize, at some point along their trajectory, their followers realize and live lives that are separate from the fundamentalism inherent in all religion. How many religious in an advanced society live according to the 'dictates,' I can think of lots of examples. Are there some who still live an orthodox faith, yes, but given other elements of society they eventually separate the two naturally.


"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow." Anais Nin

Islam has not undergone a reformation - nor is there any significant evidence that it is on a natural path to do so. If anything, the extremist factions that dream of a Global Caliphate are the thought leaders - which does not bode well for the world in general.

Which is why, sooner or later, we will have to declare war on Islam if we want to survive. I would like to do that sooner rather than later, because the problem is only going to get worse as time progresses.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Depends on which religion destroyed the lines. Not that I have any desire for any faith to have any influence over the US. But.... I think that Sharia is somewhat 'dark ages' compared to faiths such as yours or mine. What I can say, without fear, is that I'll take up arms rather than allow the destruction of the separation of Church and state. I do, however, wish that those of no faith would understand the difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. The first is how we live, the second is not.

i think all religions are dark ages if taken to their extremes. fundamentalism of any type breeds theocracy if permitted.

Absolutely.

Either of you have any examples of MAINSTREAM US Christian groups advocating any such thing?

 

[jillian]

in a theocracy like iran, it can be used against anyone.

do you think that if the line between church and state were destroyed in this country that the 'g-d hates fags' or 'let's burn korans' crowd would be any different? you know, like when we had witch hunts here.

Which is exactly why we need to stick to the principles of the Constitution and keep religion out of power.

exactly.... which was my sole point in posting this thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I didn't read the whole thread, sorry...my wife is putting me to work so I have to be quick.



I would NEVER be in favor of a Christian theocracy.

What I am OPPOSED to is the notion that all religion must be removed from the public square.

I agree 100% with this statement:

“Passive displays like the World War I Memorial, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scenes, or statements like the National Motto do not force anyone to participate in a religious exercise and, thus, do not establish religion,” commented Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, in response to the high court’s ruling.​

"The ruling" referred to is Salazar v. Buono.

On April 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to send the case back to a lower court.[9] Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm".[10]​

Salazar v. Buono - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they sent it back for further action.

and there are clearly symbols in the public realm.... there are menorah's, christmas trees, etc,

interestingly

The cross was stolen on the night of May 9–10, 2010.[11][12] National Park Service spokeswoman Linda Slater said a $25,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the thieves. The VFW promised that the memorial will be rebuilt."This was a legal fight that a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel and their families," National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell said.[13] On May 20, a replica cross was discovered to have been erected in place of the original. Park officials said it was erected overnight, but because of the court ruling park employees would have to remove the replica

Salazar v. Buono - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not in-teresting...it's in-justice.


But the ends justified the means, right?

Alinsky’s rules about the ethics of ends and means.

1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.



3. In war the end justifies almost any means.


5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
​

Alinksy, apparently, studied Rush and mastered his doctrines.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Please, Charles Main, read Waldman's Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America for a more nuanced understanding of what you are trying to expound. The book makes far righties and far lefties uncomfortable, for it slays many of their sacred cows.

 

[DiveCon]

Many "Conservatives" see no distinction between God's authority over religion and Government's authority over it. They believe government derives it's authority from god, not from the people. This brand of "Conservative" practices "Counterfeit Christianity."

Could you please cite one legitimate "conservative" who believes this.

Newt Gingrich.

source for Newt calling for a theocracy please

 

[DiveCon]

So what do you do with people who have no "occult" beliefs?

why do we have to do ANYTHING with them?
let them live their lives as they see fit

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jagger is reveals a great deal of ignorance, both historical and constitutional.

The first Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a religion and protects the rights of individuals to freely exercise their own religious preferences. Printing "In God We Trust" does not establish a state religion, such as the Church of England, which was the model the framers had in mind and wished to avoid. There is no state clergy, nor are their state churches, nor is anyone prohibited from choosing to following (or not follow) a particular religion.

God is not mentioned in the Constitution, no religious test oaths are permitted, the first amendment prevents a national church, and Jefferson clearly pointed out (the real originalist) that church and state are separated.

 

[DiveCon]

Jagger is reveals a great deal of ignorance, both historical and constitutional.

The first Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a religion and protects the rights of individuals to freely exercise their own religious preferences. Printing "In God We Trust" does not establish a state religion, such as the Church of England, which was the model the framers had in mind and wished to avoid. There is no state clergy, nor are their state churches, nor is anyone prohibited from choosing to following (or not follow) a particular religion.

God is not mentioned in the Constitution, no religious test oaths are permitted, the first amendment prevents a national church, and Jefferson clearly pointed out (the real originalist) that church and state are separated.

and just what is it you think you said that contradicts what she said?

 

[The Rabbi]

Could you please cite one legitimate "conservative" who believes this.

Newt Gingrich.

source for Newt calling for a theocracy please

I've already called him on this. Like the Douchebag he is, he refuses to answer.

 

[The Rabbi]

The first Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a religion and protects the rights of individuals to freely exercise their own religious preferences.

Nope, you're wrong.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making law that establishes virtue, as founded upon a reverence of God and an expectation of future rewards and punishments, or prohibits the free exercise thereof.

Where is any of that in the Constitution? And if someone does not exhibit a reverence of Gd and expectation of future reward and punishment what legal disability does he suffer?
The answer is none. Which is why your point is simply wrong.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The first Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a religion and protects the rights of individuals to freely exercise their own religious preferences.

Nope, you're wrong.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making law that establishes virtue, as founded upon a reverence of God and an expectation of future rewards and punishments, or prohibits the free exercise thereof.

Where is any of that in the Constitution?

It's a fair and objective interpretation obtained by following the well established rule of construction that,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

And if someone does not exhibit a reverence of Gd and expectation of future reward and punishment what legal disability does he suffer? The answer is none. Which is why your point is simply wrong.

ESTABLISHMENT, (es-tab'-lish-ment) n. i. Settlement; fixed state ; confirmation of something already done ; ratification; form; model of a government or family; foundation ; allowance; income; salary.​

--A Dictionary of the English Language; 1787 edition​

An "establishment" is a "settlement." An establishment of religion is a settlement of religion.

I subscribe to the view of Daniel Carrol and Thomas Jefferson that a settlement of religion does not have to involve a legal disability. However, it would not be unreasonable to interpret the word "establishment" to include a legal disability. Reasonable men can reasonably interpret ambiguous language to mean different things.

Fortunately, for my team, the reasonable men on the U. S. Supreme Court favored my reasonable construction over your reasonable interpretation.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Newt Gingrich.

source for Newt calling for a theocracy please

I've already called him on this. Like the Douchebag he is, he refuses to answer.

It's well established that Newt is an enemy of Separation of Church and State.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're obfuscating. The words in the Constitution in no way mean what you say. You have no proof at all.
Further, there is no establishment, even by your definition. What is established, exactly, by printing "in god we trust"?